Slashdot Mirror
Patents and User Protection In OSS
missing_myself writes "Linux.com has nice summary on 'How major distributions are dealing with potential violations of patents and trademarks, cryptography, packaging proprietary software and consequential damages' from Bruce Byfield (a journalist from OSTG)." From the article: "Slowly, some commercial distributions are taking a different route. In the last few years, indemnification has become an increasingly important issue in FOSS communities, largely because of the SCO-IBM case. Claiming ownership of Unix, SCO alleges that IBM has allowed copyrighted code to pass from System V Unix to GNU/Linux. Although no evidence has been released and the trial is not scheduled until February 26, 2007, the issues in the case have made both commercial and community FOSS participants reevaluate their practices."
I know windows won't let me use the OS in every way I want. For example, they have DRM that is enforced, DVD players under windows can lock you into a region. A friend had a linux laptop that was not locked into any region.
Is Linux going to start doing the same thing as windows? Are the major distros worried about being sued?
There are way too many lawyers in the USA. I bet if someone did a study, they would find just about everyone will be sued at least once in their life. Too bad it is not like the old days of PC computers when software companies made good money and left users alone. But ever since software companies stopped selling software and started selling services, they now are going after users. I guess selling software once for $50 is not as profitable as activating software on a monthly fee of $12.95. Take the RPG of the 80's and compare them to the games of today. :( If they had open networks, it would be like the 80's, but companies see a way of making more money.
For that matter, another horrific flaw in the American system is that trials are not bidirectional.
Let's say an evil villain accused you of killing someone. You turned around and said to the Judge, "But Your Honor, HE killed people! I didn't!" The Judge would say "We aren't here to discuss him. He's not the one on trial."
In the real world, this sort of thing happens all the time. Scummy individuals (or, more often, scummy companies) take innocent people (or companies) to court on BS charges, and at the end of it all-- after the "good guys" waste so much time and money fighting said BS charges-- the BEST they can hope for is essentially "Yeah, you're innocent. Bye now, you're free to go."
That's it. That's what the "good guys" get for their destroyed finances and personal lives.
Even a "loser pays" system wouldn't fix this (and, in fact, in practice a "loser pays" system would probably just end up benefiting the rich "bad guys" anyhow, as they could use it to bankrupt, say, single mothers whose kids allegedly warezed copies of popular music).
I know somone who was taken to court over trumped-up, rubbishy charges... charges of WRONGFUL DEATH at that. Meanwhile, it was her accuser, if anyone, who was responsible for the death. This case destroyed her social life, her health, and her finances. In the end, the bad guys won.
Were it not for IBM's presence (for the moment, at least) among the pantheon of "good guys" as far as this case goes, we wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Hell.
Is there any country whose justice system isn't completely corrupt and bureaucratic and slothful and wasteful and HORRIBLE like ours? This truly makes me sick.
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
Protecting intellectual property is good. Going after old women because someone downloaded a mp3 on thier cable line is bad. Having fees which do not match the crime are bad.
The problem is everyone has become so greedy. It is a cycle. The software companies got greedy, so they pushed the end users around with absurd EULA's. The users got ticked off and pushed back copying and distributing protected materials on P2P networks. Software companies cripled their software and made it call home. Hackers got ticked off and wrote hacks.
My advice to software companies is this: Treat the end user with respect. Why shouldn't an end user be allowed to make one back up copy of their software (for example)?
Indeed. Setting up defense funds for indemnification isn't going to solve the problem. While the patent system itself is broken and needs to be fixed, a better short term use of those funds would be to throw it into resources to review and challenge as many patents as possible. This needs to be a two-pronged attack - one, to sift through all of the published applications and challenge them before they get issued, and two, to sift through existing patents that clearly should have failed on whatever grounds.
Anybody can file an anonymous protest against a patent application before it issues, so all it takes is assigning people to read the apps and make the challenges. Companies taking out "defensive patents" are missing the point, filing for new junk patents to defend against other junk patents only makes the problem worse. Those patent lawyers ought to be earning their money invalidating junk patents, not filing new ones.
-- *My* journal is more interesting than *yours*...