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."
Well, the reason spyare companies get away scot-free, I think, is because the people in charge of making the laws don't really fully understand the problem. Well, that and they're really too busy trying to kill one another and fighting over political affiliations.
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.
Just a side thought, but will SCO even be around anyomre when the trial starts? Even if so they will have little or no money to sustain a case, especially against a giant like IBM who could outspend even MS. My biggest burning question is where does UNIX (the code) go to? Who would inherit SCOs IP? Will UNIX enter the public domain?
I am Spartacus
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)?
That's just the tip of the iceberg. Even assuming a speedy trial (perhaps 6 months, if they get a jury/judge that can stay awake through all the technical arguments), then come the appeals. This whole SCO/Linux brouhaha is just a battle of attrition now. It'll be interesting to see who cracks first and when.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
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
Sure, they're slow, but at least they do try to serve up justice. It comes back to that old Franklin quote, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety," except with convenience. Our judiciary system may take a while, but can you suggest an alternative?
http://www.TheGamerNation.com/Forums
It'll be interesting to see who cracks first and when.
Umm, I think that will be the company who hardly has any money, aka SCO.
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
will SCO even be around anyomre when the trial starts?
Possibly - they did a slash-and-burn on their personnel this summer, and recently (a week or so ago) "persuaded" their investors to chip in $10M to keep them afloat. Assuming their burn rate doesn't change, they might just stick around to see trial.
It all depends on whether Novell gets to take their money - they owe 95% of their "Unix" revenue to Novell (well, technically they owe 100%, and Novell gives them 5% back.) Novell has a motion before the court to get 95% of SCOX's money placed in escrow.
they will have little or no money to sustain a case
They claim that their legal fees are capped, so their lawyers are working for free after their cash is gone (assuming they're (a) telling the truth, and (b) SCOX manages to avoid bankruptcy altogether.)
My biggest burning question is where does UNIX (the code) go to? Who would inherit SCOs IP?
Assuming that SCOX has Unix IP to begin with (their contract with Novell says they don't,) it would be sold to the highest bidder in bankruptcy court, just like any other assets.
Will UNIX enter the public domain?
Probably not - unless someone buys it at their fire-sale and releases it as such. Rumor has it that it might already be public domain, because AT&T released it without copyright attribution (this is hearsay based on the AT&T/Berkely settlement.)
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
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.
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.
I've been buying software since 1982, and believe me, people were copying software long before there were EULAs. In fact, copy prevention measures were being put in place before there were any EULAs too.
Don't try to make out that this is all the fault of the eevil software companies - the copying came first. Perhaps not enough to require copy prevention measures as a means of staying profitable, and I'm not arguing that some of them aren't going too far, but nevertheless people started copying software before companies tried to implement technical measures to stop them.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
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
I agree with what you say, except:
Protecting intellectual property is good.
Even if applied "properly," I question the validity of the assumption that ideas can be "owned." The term itself is misleading and two major branches of intellectual property (copyright and patents) are based on highly dubious assumptions.
The arguments are extensive, and others have framed them far better than I can. Consider reading "Information Liberation" by Brian Martin (available online, of course), in particular Chapter 3: Against Intellectual Property (also available in PDF). There are many others interesting texts on the subject.
In short, I think a fairly compelling case can be made for "intellectual property" being, at it's core, a rather "bad" thing.
> Even a "loser pays" system wouldn't fix this [...] , single mothers whose kids allegedly [...]
Um, why not? No matter what, the single mother would be bankrupt anyway. So, the winning side wouldn't profit terribly from getting their share paid.
But should the single mother have a good case, I think even expensive team of lawyers might take an interest in the case based on the term, that provided they win they get payed by the losing side, and get not payed when they lose.
In the current situation, she could practically only go to court, provided the lawyers work pro bono.
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
I thought you were allowed counterclaims in the response to the claims.
For that matter, another horrific flaw in the American system is that trials are not bidirectional.
You are correct. This case is extremely bidirectional. On one side there is puny insignificant de-listed SCO, and on the other is huge massive bureaucratic ex-monopolist IBM.
Don't let your hatred of SCO blind you to the fact that this trial is extremely unbalanced.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
We don't have a justice system. We have a legal system.
China. Their legal system is corrupt, bureaucratic, slothful, wasteful, and horrible... but not like ours.
The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
If you are wondering what the people who post to
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
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.
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.
Even though SCO they have a snowballs chance in hell of winning anything worth having, it is in the interests of people with deep pockets to keep the case going as long as possible.
There is enough at stake that for others it is worth a punt of a few million, just on the rare off chance they might get a settlement worth having a share of.
As such I'd be surprised if some entity wasn't around for the court case. Whether there is anyone else there but lawyers by that point is another question entirely. The way the system works these days, it is likely anything worth preserving will be sold off.
Are there restrictions on SCO divesting itself of assets (especially at a good price - know what I mean), as I doubt IBM wants to win, and then find there isn't enough left to cover their costs?
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! ..." The Judge would say "We aren't here to discuss him. He's not the one on trial."
Yes. That's what a trial is supposed to do: sort out one particular issue. If your evil doer committed the murder in question, then that would be relavent. The legal system is intended to be blind to matters of personality, and trials are supposed to rest solely on facts. Things don't work perfectly, of course, but what you're complaing about is a feature--- not a bug.
Dunno, one of my toasters (a 2 slicer) is against bagels, or at least the good ones I get at the local bakery. They're too big to fit in the slots. Handles that ultrathin "diet" bread fine though. My other toaster, a nice 4 slicer, is strongly for bagels, in fact, purchased because it has extra large slots. The toaster over is not a strong or vocal bagel supporter, but will tend to vote with/for the bagel as a "if i can't decide pick this one" tendancy.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
Well, o humourless one, you've displayed an ignorance of irony that would make Alanis Morissette proud.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
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?
Trials are MONODIRECTIONAL. If person A accuses person B of murder, but person A is the actual murderer, person B has to wait until the trial is done to accuse person A. At least, to have person A put "on trial".
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?