OSDL Says Patent Threat to Linux is Receding

blacksilver writes "The chief executive of the Open Source Development Labs (ODSL) has said that the threat facing Linux from software patent-infringement claims has receded. From the article: 'Lots of people who hold a lot of patents have looked at this issue, and nothing's come of it ... There's always been a suspicion that some of them [the alleged infringing patents] were held by Microsoft, so this could be an issue ... our customer advisor people speak to people, including major customers who run both Windows and Linux, and they say it's not an issue,'"

Comments

Issues With Issues

[Doc Ruby]

Is "threat receeding" == "not an issue"? Maybe "no threat" == "not an issue". Maybe we've just euphamized "problem" to "issue" so much that now we can't even distinguish between "no problem" and "no issue".

Good PR!

[NCraig]

Mueller has published an opinion piece on popular tech news blog Slashdot, in which he argues that companies who pledge not to use their patents against Linux are guilty of 'cheap PR plays'.

As opposed to the not-at-all-cheap PR play at hand? But hey, Mueller's "customer advisor people speak to people." Very comperehensive.

Among the companies that don't support the Patent Commons initiative are Microsoft, HP, and Oracle. The article mentions the claim that Linux potentially violates 283 patents. Unfortunately the list of infringements was not released, but wouldn't the OSDL be wise to do some research in order to determine the validity of the claim? Then they would know for certain if any of the supposedly sullied patents belong to the above corporations.

But hey, his people speak to people.

Only "commercial" Linux ever worried...

[pla]

The entire boogeyman of some company destroying Linux via a patent suit never really threatened most of us in the first place.

Why, you might ask?

Because most of us don't really care. Patents count as a silly abstract nuissance for business-folk, not for hobbyist developers. Treble damages? 3 * $0 = $0. No doubt some lawyer will point out that other dangers exist, but really, I (and I doubt most of us) really lose sleep over the idea that our use, or even code contributions, of Linux may violate some obscure submarine patent waiting to spring out at us.


Or to look at it another way: If the USSC banned Linux tomorrow due to it infringing some patent - How many of you would run out and buy XP to "fix" all your now-illegal machines?

A delicate balance

[dcavanaugh]

The patent threat is held in check because of a deadlock of sorts. MS has some patents, but then again so does IBM, Oracle, etc. The first use of patents by MS against Linux will trigger retaliation from MS competitors. If all of the patents were enforced simultaneously, the IT industry would grind to a halt.

The best we can hope for is a massive proliferation of patents. The more, the better, so as to create gridlock. USPTO likes it this way -- more power to 'em.

Imagine that patent as the paper equivalent of a handgun. They can be used for crime or defense against crime. Armed criminals are a real problem -- they can rob people at-will. But if EVERYONE is packing a .44 Magnum, armed robbery becomes nearly impossible. Some people might want to take all the guns away, but it's easier (and almost as effective) to make sure everyone has one.

Re:A delicate balance

[dcavanaugh]

Having no software patents is certainly preferable. But to do that, you have to keep the cat in the bag. Indeed, the Europeans have it right (so far). My description of patent gridlock is a distant second to preventing them in the first place. Once the cat is out of the bag, gridlock is the next best option.

This just in...

[Billosaur]

Dateline the Mediterranean: the estates of Plato and Aristotle are claiming that Linux infringes on their patents for "logic", since logic is an intrinsic part of the operating system. There is no word on whether suits will be filed with the World Court.

I say this a lot -- the idea of the software patent is absurd, as much so as patenting genes. Patents in the United States were originally thought of as a means to allow Federal support of science. The idea was to stimulate creativity and industrial innovation and allow inventors to reap the benefits of their inventions. The patent process was meant to be strictly controlled and only the most original ideas and variants on common ideas were granted patents.

Software is generally a commodity, not an invention. If I come up with a novel way of parsing files, storing data, or even creating better processing throughput, perhaps that may be thought of as unique, but the fact is I'm using a programming language that others have access to as well as systems others have access to, and there's every possibility that someone else may have had the same idea.

It comes down the fact the ideas are not proprietary -- anyone can have them. What you choose to do with them is your business. Frankly, I like the Open Source approach, simply from the standpoint of it being a sharing-the-wealth system, that avoids a lot of reinventing-the-wheel that goes on in this world. It gives everyone the opportunity to advance systems and apply new ideas to technology. It is the complete antithesis of the patent model, as it presupposes that developments in software are to be shared, not hoarded.

This whole linux patent business is not over by a longshot, especially since Microsoft has not enterred the fray.

Re:Pantents usage..

[bubulubugoth]

Then, there is no need for software patents...

Re:Customer Responses?

[typical]

Also, it's not like OSDL (geek haven central) is particularly free of bias. I'm sure that OSRM would probably have a very different take on things.

Frankly, I don't think that patents are a big threat to Linux. Linux is clearly beneficial enough and important enough to enough people now that there are some heavyweights that would be willing to help support legal issues (IBM and Novell, for example, are probably not going to sit and watch as someone tries to claim that a primary product of theirs is illegal).

Linux is an exceedingly unattractive target for litigation for *anyone* other than maybe Microsoft (which has a competitive motive). The core Linux community is bone-dry WRT money relative to similarly influential non-OSS software offerings. There are a large number of large companies who would probably commit to defend Linux if their products were at risk (and a challenge to the legality of the kernel would certainly do so). Linux has a cute mascot and is made by a lot of smart, nice, dedicated volunteers, and is really mediagenic. SCO started out with the Wall Street Journal running articles like "This is One Time You'll Want David to Lose to Goliath" (David being SCO, Goliath being Linux) and wound up with their CEO universally disliked, suffering death threats and a steady stream of negative commentary, more dirt-unveiling background research than I've *ever* seen a politician have to undergo, scads of folks (armed with legal degrees and otherwise) volunteering to find every loophole in SCO's claims and undermine their attacks...it was Not Fun to be SCO. I can't imagine many companies who would want to do this.

The final issue is that while copyright is pretty well respected by most developers out there (it's what lets most of them make a living), software patents are a whole different store. A software patent lawsuit against Linux, given the *huge* number of people involved in the European effort to defend the software world against software patents, might actually be the spark that would prevent people in the US from filing software patents in the future.