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

Customer Responses?

[RoadDogTy]

But, our customer advisor people speak to people, including major customers who run both Windows and Linux, and they say it's not an issue

Are customers who run Windows and Linux really the right people to be asking these kinds of questions? Shouldn't they be commenting on Microsoft (and other companies') actions instead of random customer opinion? Seems kind of random.

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.

Just to be clear..

[sedyn]

Copyright threats against linux are still alive and strong, right?
We wouldn't want the OSDL to spread such FUD among SCO investors!

Perceived threat is still a threat.

[EmbeddedJanitor]

For the most part, the patent and other IP stuff is just FUD. However, it can be a highly disruptive force as our friends at SCO have shown us. A threat does not have to be legally enforcable or binding to have its desired effect. A perceived threat is just as effective.

When people eat the FUD, they don't necessarily believe it. Instead they just add this to the risk pile: "Aww heck I don't want to have to possibly go to court...".

Re:Perceived threat is still a threat.

[tomstdenis]

*cough* *cough* NSA licenses GF(p) curves from certicom.

What the fuck is that about? [hint: there are no patents on GF(p) point operations or DH/DSA].

Sometimes if you talk fast enough and have a classy enough suit you can convince people of anything. At the ceritcom ECC con- [can't say convention cuz that would be giving them too much credit] this year it was all about how "certicoms ECC technology was leading the way" etc cough cough gag!

All I have to say is this

"250,000 patents filed every year, and still no microwavable safe metals." :-)

Most patents are just nuisance pointless bragging patents. Oh we "invented" a way to do something trivially different from what you are doing. Or fuck, let's just patent something other people do but word it up all in our own lingo.

Like the MSFT patents on cron jobs...

The reason why no patent suits have been brought against Linux is because they wouldn't hold ground in court. I'm sure on paper there are patents that Linux somehow violates. I just wouldn't count on them being legitimate.

Tom

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".

283 Patents?

[thebdj]

So they say that Linux potential violates 283 software patents? Now I do not know that they went through every software patent, but that is WELL below the number of issued software patents I am sure, so was there really much of a threat anyway? Besides that there is always the potential of any patents being invalidated in court even if it ever happened.

I do not see why a corporation would be scared from Linux by this potential though. You are talking about a patent infringement that would affect the companies and people distributing Linux and not the people using it. I really think everyone sort of got scared about this at first, but realized the threat was not as bad as everyone was originally stating.

Re:283 Patents?

[Red Flayer]

"You are talking about a patent infringement that would affect the companies and people distributing Linux and not the people using it."

It could definitely affect users as well as distributors. Should licensing to a distributor be denied, those users could get screwed by not having any support for their distro.

Not only that, but IP rights can be enforced on the end user as well as the distributors, since they are also using the IP without a license.

Re:283 Patents?

[Red Flayer]

Yes, actually, they could. But it's not worth the cost of doing so, both in terms of litigation and in terms of collection. It's also hard to prove damages when the end user is not involved in reselling the technology.

US Code, pulled from the wikipedia article on patent infringement (emphasis mine): "A person directly infringes a patent by making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing into the US any patented invention, without authority, during the term of the patent. 35 U.S.C. 271(a)"

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_infringement

Re:283 Patents?

[nsayer]

So on your argument NTP can sue every user of one of RIM's Blackberry devices?

EOLAS can sue everyone using M$ Internet Explorer?

Yup. You'll recall that SCO sued an end-user of Linux. This caused at leasat one outfit to offer to indemnify their customers (that is, to pay for their defense and any damage judgements should they be sued).

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.

Receding, like before a tsunami

[praedictus]

The deepsea floor cracks with the rumbles of Microsofts declining sales as software becomes "good enough". As the developers wander out into the seabed picking up the flopping fish of patent infringing code, the wave of lawsuits builds out of sight, until it crashes in with its weighty force, SCOuring all in its path. Stick to high ground and be safe!

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

[ThosLives]

"How about a nice game of chess?"

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.

Harder to kill Linux with patents

[external400kdiskette]

Linux is de-centralized so it cant ever be killed like other companies can by patents and other lawsuits, just ask SCO, you'd literally have to win against hundreds of companies worldwide and even then people are always going to be modifying the source on an individual level. It's everywhere.

Not troll-proof

[PMuse]

Patents are not a shield. They are a sword. When a competitor tries to stab you with his patent, you draw out your own and, all else being more or less equal, he may agree to leave you be rather than risk you killing his business.

Patent "trolls" are not competitors. They are file-drawer companies that don't make anything and don't sell anything. You cannot kill a troll's business with your patent sword because they have no business.

Patent pools are no defense against trolls. Linux companies are no safer than anyone else when the troll demands a piece of their profits.

Re:What would have been the result?

[alexfromspace]

I am not a lawyer, but I can make a good guess that if enough of such cases (prior art in open source for existing patents) are handled by courts, it will go on to tell the legal and the lawmaking branches of government that the patent system is obsolete. It will create legal precendents for favoring open source over patents in the future, as the open source is actually effective in promoting innovation, unlike software patents.

Re:What would have been the result?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are there any lawyers out there?

Yes, there are many. That's the problem.

Re:Pantents usage..

[Rattencremesuppe]

Maybe you shoudl be able to patent, the hole source code of a program,

Why? The whole source code is already protected by copyright

Re:Pantents usage..

[bubulubugoth]

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

US campaign

[Elektroschock]

What is needed now is no protection shield against software patents.

What is needed now is an American equivalent to the European campaign effort. It is possible to abolish software patents and this is the way to go.

So where is the US campaign?

Just of the phone with Darling MacBribe

[jurt1235]

According to his Software COmpany, they are still going strong. Just remember, they already demanded the 2.7 linux kernel code from IBM. They will soon go after other companies working on this secret code branch:
- Novell, you know, the compagny who actually owns the patents SCO is sueing IBM about.
- slackware: Infringing on it since the previous millenium, so more than 1000 years already
- Users: What the RIAA can do, we can do too! You run linux at home, we will sue you!

Anyway, Darling was at it again.

Re:Back to the drawing board...

[aztracker1]

From a recent interview experience I had, it is my opinion that Microsoft isn't interested in true creativity, they want C.S. degreed weinees who can recite definitions of low-level development constructs... This left such a sour point to me, that I am now moving my servers *away* from Windows, even though my software is properly paid for, and licensed... they won't be getting *more* money from me...

I also won't be recommending any more 6 figure purchases based on their technology.

Re:Pantents usage..

[bdcrazy]

Two separate entities can copyright the same thing, as long as it was made independantly, there is no copyright violation. There can be only one patent holder for that thing, and the first to file usually wins
and can rake in the money from the other. (Look up Alexander Graham Bell vs Elisha Gray)

I'm not making a judgement on whether software patents are good or bad,
just a way of looking at the difference between them and why some companies
think they are better.