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 hope all you dirty fuckin nerds get a bar of soap for christmas.
Fuckin nerds.
The following replies are posted by unwashed nerds.
Yes, you read that right.
This whole fucking mess won't make it to court until FEBRUARY TWENTY-SIXTH, TWO THOUSAND SEVEN .
And people wonder why spammers and virus writers and spyware companies get away scot-free? This case hase been going on for, what, half a decade now (or it sure seems like it...), and it's not going to court until OVER A YEAR FROM NOW?
The wheels of justice in this country must turn at a speed that makes the Space Shuttle crawlers look like a Formula 1 car.
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
Wait, is /. for protecting intellectual property or against it, I'm confused!
LINUX ONLINE POKER: Linux Poker
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.
It just depends on what you mean by "protect" -- if you mean "protect the corporations' unearned monopolies so that they can own culture itself," then we're against that. If you mean "protect the work itself from being horded by said corporations," then we're for that.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
TFA says:
To date, no patent claim has ever been upheld against FOSS, and no individual or corporation has needed indemnification yet.
I think that claim is correct. I don't know of any successful claims against major FOSS projects (does anyone have a reference one way or the other, either showing exhaustively that all cases have been fruitless, or showing counter-examples, where claims were upheld?). Overall it seems somewhat strange to be building in indemnification for something that is still, essentially, theoretical. Isn't that like taking out insurance against alien attack?
I guess it's valid since we do have cases where people were sued (even if the claims were false in the end). So having insurance to cover court costs against frivolous lawsuits is indeed necessary. That, however, to me points to a major flaw in the current legal system: we need insurance to continually financially protect us from frivolous lawsuits. It should be easier to avoid baseless accusations, but it isn't.
Wait a minute. I thought the allegations of copyright infringement by IBM were dropped from the case over a year ago.
I thought this was now a simple contract disagreement.
Is there a 4th amended complaint?
--fatboy
Though I will probably have to modify the license text to explicitly state that users are not indemnified against patent infringement. I have a pretty good idea which company would take issue there and it's not who you would think.
Software is honestly not patentable, and that is very provable.
To use an analogy, the decimal system is far easier and more powerful to use than the roman numeral system, but it took 300 years for the change over to happen due to the persistance of the roman numeral elite.
Galileo wasn't exorinated untill the early 1990's, long after he was dead... allot of good the exorination did him. But it help the catholic church not run off its followers with silly notions of the earth or man being the center of the universe.
Software patents are like these foolish things of our past.... they will become such as well
I've said it before and I'll say it again - the problem is not the software infringing on patents, it's the fact that software can be patented at all.
All of this software is legal outside of the US, whether there are US patents held on it or not. It is the US patent system that is at fault here, not the software vendors.
The US needs to get its act together, or it will find itself falling behind in homegrown new technology as all the innovative companies move (or stay) overseas.
Bob
Listen to my latest album here
Although I definitely need to brush up on my patent law, this is just getting out of hand. Does SCO really expect to make a difference here? I mean, just the court costs of suing everyone who makes or uses *nix will outweight any gain. Also, they are giving themselves the kiss of death when it comes to people who actually want to use the software they claim is theirs.
It's almost comical, watching someone try to beat a mountain (linux) with a stick, but sad too. When will sense prevail?
According to the article, some OSS vendors are indemnifying their customers from patent lawsuits "at their own expense". Imagine how this will all play out. Microsoft has a huge patent portfolio they can use to defend themselves from others who sue them for infringement (cross licensing, mutual assured destruction). But Redhat and other OSS vendors, by virtue of the fact that their code is open and shared, do not have such a portfolio. They must instead pay settlements and license fees. In the end, it seems to me, Redhat's products will be more expensive than Microsoft's, just due to their legal fees.
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
Now, if the open source patent pools could be used offensively, or the Independent Invention Defense were allowed, we'd probably see some action.
What needs to happen here is that OSS projects need to start filing patents. They can include the right to use the patents in the license (GPL or what ever else, I know there are a lot of them) for the software. If the OSS project holds the patents, then they don't have to worry about being sued. I think this would be really good, since the best parts of Win2K, Win2003, and WinXP are Unix ripoffs - ipconfig anyone?
2 cents,
Queen B
HDGary secures my bank
Most patents these days are bogus and will be toss out of court if challenged by anyone with even half a brain. And all software patents are doubly bogus. Just ignore these brain dead, moronic things, do what you want, and say a big, "fuck you" to the corps that decided to patents obvious, already in use, even public domain things.
Telling me I can't write a computer program (or that I have to pay you some money to be allowed to write a computer program) is 'intimidation' and has got to stop.
Telling me I can't give a computer program I wrote to a friend (or that I have to pay you some money to be allowed to) is likewise 'intimidation' and has got to stop.
If you take money from me on either basis, then I will not fix your computer program when it breaks. I will not teach your children how to program computers. And I will hold you responsible when my computer program breaks.
Computer programs are just like paintings. I will paint what I like and give as I choose.
FOSS does not mean the voluntary contribution of a group of stupid hippies to the business interests of the world.
Welcome back to the Wild West. He who can code, controls the world. We write code. We use code. End of story - Except...
Corporate America has a schizophrenic obsession with the code we write and use. On the one hand, they see something for free and want in. On the other, they see an ENORMOUS threat to everything they stand for, and want us all taken out back and shot.
Well, this time, it doesn't really matter what Corporate America wants. They can play along if they want, but every time they try to play (or buy) the new sheriff in town, they get tarred and feathered and send home crying to mommy that we treated them unfairly. "They broke my pathetically weak DRM! They won't let me root their PCs! Make them play fair, Un'ca Sam!"
Patents? What do the distros do about it? The "real" distros, by which I mean those that don't have shareholders to answer to, do nothing. And if they buckle, someone else will come along to replace them - Once you know how, it doesn't take much to "roll your own" distro (I say that as someone who has done it... granted, maintaining one, with active users, takes a lot of free time).
So stop Asking Slashdot what horrors will befall us when the festering patent dungheap hits the cool-breeze-blowing fan of Open Source. Because the fan gets a little dirty, and keeps right on spinning, while those flinging the feces get covered in shit.
i would really like to hear linus' take on all of these accusations. i know he's commented before, but i would like to know what he thinks of these new ones. it's risky for him, yes, but he's the _source_ of the _code_ so he should know. comfort me linus!
The exact same issue exist in open and closed source products in this regard. In most cases, there's no indemnification, or it's limited to the product cost.
The only substantial difference is that with F/OSS software, it's easier to identify violations and remediate them. It's also easier to trace the responsible party.
The whole discussion highlights a travesty of US law -- that liability for patent violation can be extended beyond the violator to parties ignorant of the implementation. This is doubly idiotic since it's highly unlikely that any user or administrator is capable of evaluating a product they buy (or download) to determine if it's clear of patent encumberances. Hell, even when there's an allegation of a patent violation it's excruciating for a court and panel of experts to identify actual violations.
Oh well, so long as only the little guy gets screwed, I suppose it's OK. I mean, that's how the system is designed to work, right?
is the group that disgust, or been alike to reap Case you want to name on the jar of arseholes at Walnut MAKES ME SICK JUST else up their asses consider worthwhile (7000+1400+700)*4 platform for the Are a pathetic GNAA and support could save it United States. AMERICA) might be or chair, return users of BSD/OS. A failure, its corpse would choose t0 use person. Ask your SOME INTELLIGENT can no longer be has significantly raise or lower the you down. It was sudDen and outstrips Keed to be Kreskin these rules will The last night of share. FreeBSD is Open platform, that the project For all practical hobby. It was all of open-source. lagged behind, roots and gets on questions, then , a proud member Do, and with any ASSOCIATION OF be any fucking