Slashdot Mirror
Blackberry Blackout Threat to Software as Service?
TheIndifferentiate writes "In light of how CEOs are reacting to a possible court injunction which could shutdown their RIM BlackBerry service, what impact do you think this will have on the 'Software as a Service' business model? The conventional wisdom in some commercial software corners has it that the threat of patent litigation should stop Open Source Software development in its tracks. If my business depends on an OSS application, and it gets shut down, I can potentially go on about my business as I have the executables and wouldn't have to stop using them until someone came knocking at my door. If an SaaS application gets shut down and my business depends on it, I'm dead in the water. Seems like one of the prime arguments against OSS also takes out SaaS too. Rhetorically speaking, how could a commercial ISV in good faith talk any business out of an OSS application and into an SaaS application?"
Service of any kind can fail; companies should always have contingency plans in place in case of such failure. BlackBerry is a great tool, but there are other tools now that can do the same task and companies have known for some time the risk that existed to the service. Those who haven't a migration plan have simply failed to plan, but the loss won't be too grave as e-mail itself will continue internally and there are plenty of PDAs/Phones that can take over the workload.
On the other hand, when a service is key to the operations of the company it is far more important to have solid contingency plans. We provide such a system and the big concern our large clients have is "how do we continue if your company fails". Even though we have escrowed code, it wouldn't do the clients much good as they would have to bring up servers, restore the data and understand the operations side. For that reason some clients are paying for "continuity insurance" which funds us for three to six months at a maintenance level to operate the system until the escrowed code running and ownership is transferred.
We are handling this continuity by placing the funds in a reserve controlled by a third party that is releasable via the "triggering conditions" of a contract ending or our normal operations being threatened. Obviously, if our product was open source, there would still be the transfer concerns, so I don't think open source provides some magic bullet in the case of "software as service" since typically such arrangements include the hosting. It would provide the availability to continue development after the failure of the service, but again our code escrow and transfer effectively is the same thing (although the various clients would do so independently instead of under the banner of some foundation. I see the possibilities of a foundation that could better steer such development as perhaps the only real benefit to OSS, and frankly it isn't out of the question to BSD license the code upon failure (we don't but we could).
Sig under construction since 1998.
This has been an issue in outsourcing deals since forever. If you put your eggs in someone else's basket, you have a stake in how they build that basket. If you are big enough, contracts can be structured to strike an acceptable risk sharing balance. If you're just Joe Customer, you might get screwed, but you might not have a choice.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
> how could a commercial ISV in good faith talk any business out of an OSS application and into an SaaS application? ...in a standard format (XML'd do). For example, Salesforce does this.
Go somewhere random
They should eminent domain his ass on that patent. It's not like he was using it. (Actually, yes, I am aware that the submitter of the patent has passed away and that it is his heirs that are pushing this. They have less of a legitmate claim than the original applicant did.)
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
RIM created this problem by not having the foresight when the whole thing with NTP first surfaced, to create a contingency system which avoided the systems in question. Lack of vision now threatens to destroy everything they've built up, if they're fix to this problem is not easy for Blackberry users to implement and use.
That said, no one can truly anticipate where the attack is going to come from, but in developing a service you have to be prepared for anything to occur which may alter your service's operation. This doesn't mean just Business Continuity Planning for Katrina- and 9/11-type disasters, but the possibility of patent fights, industrial espionage, and just plain stupidity. It may add to lead times and slow production and upgrades, but more time spent up front will save a lot of time on the back end.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
"After Angelina Jolie, the wireless portable e-mail device is the thing every business leader wants by his side at the annual World Economic Forum, where hundreds of chief executives, dozens of heads of state and the odd celebrity couple gather to discuss world woes and corporate trends."
And some of those business leaders wanted Brad Pitt even more. Oh woe is the world.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
That said, obviously holding your own files, both applications and data, is safer (part of why I don't have the slightest interest in this supposed Google Office Suite) but not for any reason having to do with patents.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
I'd have to say there's nothing I'd like better than a Crackberry network shutdown, at least for a week. It might actually wake up the execs to the mess the modern patent system has made.
Also, probably some 80% of the people I know who have the damn things only have them to make themselves feel important, not because a life-and-death email could come in at any moment. It's very disruptive trying to talk to some ass who thinks every time his CB goes off he should pick it up rather than continuing the discussion with the real, live person in front of him/her, yet that's what most of them do... Plus, most of this 80% have increased their stress level unbelievably by destroying the greatest feature of email - the ability to get back to it when it doesn't disrupt things, unlike, say, phone calls.
That said, redundancy is a good thing for those people where it really is an end-of-everything scenario to be out of touch with their email. There should be a backup plan, and this will be a healthy reminder. When I'm on call for production support, I have a cell phone and a pager at all times, and if I'm home, email and my land line work as well. Inevitably, at least one of these often fails to reach me, that's why there are backups.
The rest of the people, the 80% above, well, they just need to pop a valium or two and realize that it doesn't matter that much...
Nathan
I don't know much about the software infrastructure that RIM uses, but I would think that if the USPO gets them shut down in the US...just relocate their servers in Canada. It probably all goes out via TCP/IP and Cellphone systems, I would think. Probably add a few seconds of lag...
ttyl
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
I don't understand why this is "special" for either OSS or SaaS.
If Microsoft Word infringed on patents and the patent holder refused to settle with Microsoft, and you relied on Microsoft Word, you're just as fucked as anyone using OSS or SaaS that got killed by patents.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
When I think of "software as a service" I don't think of centrally-administered, service-providing software-based services like the Blackberry.
Instead, I think of the millions of software developers who write code designed to provide services to some sort of business entity, without trying to sell the software per sae.
As this software is never exposed (being that it is never sold as product) it is immune from patent protection. If you have invented and patented some widget, and I build a similar widget for my own use (but never sell it) then I am not infringing your patent.
"Software as a service" refers to the concept that a coder is esentially a mechanic, not a producer of a physical good that can be bought and sold - much the same way that a musician *should* be a performer who is paid for performances, not the producer of a physical good.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
All it took was one little patent holding company to bring down a legitimate product used by millions of business users. Does NTP even make a product of their own? The main reason that I see this as a problem is pretty simple: software patents' shelf-lives are too long to do anything but make them a pay day for the lawyers. A one or two year term would work, but the 17 year term makes the format/approach/algorithm completely unusuable to most competitors for derivatives, extensions, etc. for its entire useful life. Does anyone honestly think that a company in Microsoft, Apple or Oracle's position would license their patents to a small, but viable competitor without charging near bankrupcy rates?
Software development is the cheapest type of engineering there is. Unlike other industries, it's far easier for a small outfit to grow on a small budget and see a return on its investment.
It seems to me that alarms are sounding a little bit too loudly here. For IP cases where licensing is the issue and a settlement is imminent; Prudently the company would pay the fine in lieu of a forced service shutdown. Case closed. Is it reasonable for the BlackBerry to be shutdown? No. Will it happen? No. Think like a reasonable judge would: punish the company not the users who use the service.
The case where a service is shutdown is most often due to bankruptcy. If your business relies heavily on a shaky or near bankrupcy service, I'd sugest seeking a backup plan or a escrow deal for the code from such service.
IANAL blah blah blah, but have some common sense!
Same thing could happen with them, and the impact would be far greater. Read your EULA, MS reserve the right to revoke your license without any explanation or compensation. This is the reason why 'proprietary file formats considered harmful.'
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
As much as I support OSS and I think the argument that commercial software is just as vulnerable to the risk of patent infringing, I disagree that they are comparable in likely outcomes. A business that sells the software under their own liscence has the option of settling with the patent holder, paying liscence fees, mounting a legal challenge that invalidates the patent, etc. That none of these things happened in the Blackberry case is more the result of factors unique to this particular conflict and the players themselves.
But take an OSS software that is distributed for free. Most if not all of these options are off the table, meaning they are much more likely to get shut down as a result of an infringement case. Hence more risk. Though in a shutdown situation I agree that OSS would be preferable as it would at least allow individual users to continue in-house development until they were able to move on to something else instead of potentially facing an overnight shutdown situation.
The threat the article described is one of another company owning patents to the software used coming in and shutting down the company.
The problem I see even if you have a code escrow agreement, if the company you have an escrow arrangement with is being shut down is doing so because of patents they may not be legally able to give you the escrowed code and it may be withheld from you! I would imagine the first thing a patent holder would demand from a company in violation is that no source could be released unless you paid them first, and furthermore that you cease using the software at once (if it's an application, not a service)
Code escrow only addresses the financal, not IP risks of using proprietary software - service or deployed application. The great thing about OSS is no-one really tracks who has what - so even if a project is found in violation you can simply keep running it while you execute a migration strategy.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Anything can "fail", whether OSS, SaaS, or proprietary software.
Companies which develop and sell proprietary software can run afoul of IP protections also. They may annoy someone enough that a lawsuit is filed. They may have underestimated their potential market share, and have gone out of business due to insufficient revenues. It may be a private company and the owner dies suddenly with no provisions to what happens to the company after he's gone. (After all, not all software is developed by and for large companies.)
The point is, every business model is vulnerable. Just part of the risks of doing business.
There is an endless list of useless and/or misused software products being purchased by business today. If your SaaS can get some cool buzzwords and lots of hype, the PHBs will line up to buy it, nevermind the risk.
It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
1) If a large company brings an IP claim of any sort against a small company, the large company wins.
2) If a sleazy patent holding company can manage to convince the USPTO that their lame-brained and/or overly sweeping patents are valid, everyone they choose to attack loses.
3) If a company succeeds in bribing politicians to changing laws in their favor, that company wins.
Rule #3 can override rule #2 or rule #1. Rule #2 can override rule #1.
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
I bet their contigency plan sucks or they would have already gone to it.
Anyone short their stock yet???
Again let us not forget the RIM servers being Canadian. This seems to provide perfecto cover (if needed) for NSA to say all BlackBerry communications are not strictly domestic, therefore subject to legal tapping.
Sorry, couldn't resist :-)
There actually is a very good chance that the BlackBerry network will shut down. RIM's position seems to be that the only deal they can get from NTP is too costly, time-consuming, or whatever, and that they'd rather go down in flames.
If that's what RIM wants to do, that's what's gonna happen. And if they piss NTP off too much, it won't matter how deep their pockets are - NTP seems willing to deny RIM a patent license for spite.
what?
And you better with OSS because in this case you don't only have the exe but the source as well!
No, you aren't. In the case of a patent infringement problem, all the source gets you is an opportunity to be sued by the patent holder. And it's worse than that - at least here in the USA, you'd be subject to treble damages for knowingly violating the patent.
The legal issue is of money. The winner will operate the Black Berry Business.
If you run Exchange, you should use Goodlink. Blackberry can only pray to be as stable, easy, and awesome as Goodlink is under an Exchange environment.
I admin both servers now (because people are hesitant to change), but I have to say from both a user and administrative point of view, Goodlink beats the PANTS off of Blackberry.
My biggest love from Goodlink... the lack of a "Reconcile Now" option. How lame is that?
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
It is almost inconceivable that the service will get shut down, for the simple reason that it would hurt NTP as much as it would hurt RIM (and their customers). Some patent suits are about keeping a somebody from competing with your business, but RIM isn't NTP's competitor. NTP has no business other than (trying to) license their patent(s).
Imagine if you will, the (absurd) situation of RIM throwing up their hands and saying, "OK, you win, we'll stop infringing, shut it all down, and go out of business". At that point, NTP would be stuck with a worthless patent. I suppose they could try to build their own network so they could practice their patent, or maybe shop it around to some other licensee, but neither one seems very likely.
A successful parasite never kills its host.
I was just about to ship an online version of Magic: The Blackberry. Two great addictions in one, how could it lose?
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
If the patent wasn't passed on and would die upon the submitter's death, you would have alot of mysterious deaths of inventors...
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
Look at it as local control vs. remote. If I have the application and the data on my local machine, what do I care if another company gets an injunction against the manufacturer of something? I can still do what I need to do.
But if things are remote -- Blackberry, remote storage, remote applications such as SaaS are examples -- then I'm far more vulnerable.
Not just to injunctions shutting down the service, "upgrades" that go wonky, but to idiots with backhoes!
It comes down to that risk - benefit analysis. Am I willing to risk having key parts of my infrastructure in the hands of someone else, or do I want it local, where I can see it (and screw it up myself, but that's another part of the equation).
Do I want to put myself in the position where someone can say, "Sorry, you don't have permission to open that document any more."
Nope, I want things where I can see them. Remote backup is another story, but I want the primaries under my control.
And saying this is another death-blow to OSS is just more FUD.
Namaste--
Basically, you have to say "Fine you say we've violated your patent." The courts are backing you.
Now how do you propose to handle the transition?
We'll be shut down as of .
If you're not up and completely able to pick up the service seamleassly as of , you've essentially told all of your customers: "Oops. RIM were supposed to blink, roll over, and shove lots of lovely money at us. We never intended it to go this far. Sorry."
What is your plan for taking it from us? Do you have a capital plan? Resources? Communication bandwidth allocated, etc..
I suggest that until you come up with such a plan, and not just to sell it to somnebody else, we continue operating exactly as we have without having to waste money on your lawsuit.
Then RIM comes off sounding good, maybe able to win for losing and fuck the consequences.
And the US Patent Office get a deserved black eye from the lawyers who just realised that being better is more important than being first, or even being "right."
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
If my business depends on an OSS application, and it gets shut down, I can potentially go on about my business as I have the executables and wouldn't have to stop using them until someone came knocking at my door.
Do the terms "willful infringement" and "triple damages" mean anything to you?
I can't wait for a blackout. It will mean I get some peace for once.
If something exists that does not need a creator (god) then why must the cosmos need one?
If Blackberry really violates the patents with its text-messaging service. Who's to say sms and email doesn't violate too?
I haven't gone into the details, but the claims looked pretty broad last time I read an article about it.
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Why?
Company currently employs inventor. Has monopoly on idea as long as he's still alive. Profit.
Same company kills inventor, kills their own profit. Dumb.
Other company kills inventor. Monopoly goes away. Original company still makes some profit, for a while, through brandname recognition. Everyone else has to compete against Taiwanese-manufactured product that retails for less that local manufacturing cost.
455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
You are right NTP has no business. But NTP is in relationship with Visto. Visto is a RIM competitor. Visto and NTP are suing Microsoft as well (this is a new business model, don't bother to make money, just sue companies that make some). And strangely Visto received 120M$ from VCs in last october. And VCs agreed to use this money to sue Microsoft.
Actually, it is not a parasite business model (maybe it was back in 2002). Now, NTP (licenses) and Visto (business) are together. NTP kills RIM (99% of the market share) and Visto will take RIM's place. Visto is suing Microsoft to keep them away of the business, during the replacement phase. Sounds like a plan.
As I understand it, RIM is looking at various work arounds to avoid having to pay any licensing to NTP. If I'm NTP and I know RIM is trying to buy time to finish their work around, I'm going to push hard to shut them down until they can come back up in a manner that won't violate my IP. Unless, RIM is going to pay me something to back off. A blackout of just a day is bad news for RIM. It would also be bad news for the SaaS model because parallels can be drawn.
Meanwhile, if an open source product is determined to violate patents, in theory using the software is no more legal than in either of the above cases. Sure, you might be able to operate below radar longer, but I would hate to have *that* as my contingency plan.
I do agreee that the "deeper sand to hide your head in" plan is not exactly the best idea... perhaps a better aspect to consider is that potential finanical liability would be lower if you were not paying for the software itself and only for services. It would be harder I think to realistically extort much from you if the previous market value for software had been zero.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Comparing a software as a service for BlackBerry (closed Source) and comparing it to future FUD towards open source is unfair.
Open Source is Open, take a look. The chances of it being spoted are sooner than closed source. Closed source on the other hand can gain marketshare such as RIM, and then get shut out... widening the impact.
The debate goes both ways for the risks of Open and Closed source.
Closed source you paid for it, and then they take it away.
Open source you didn't pay for it, and no one yet has taken it away.
Open source more alternatives, closed source more costly alternatives.
...shareholders, "due diligence", and lawsuits.
..a LOT, a big ole heap of bunches! Plus, the great feeling of satisfaction you get when you WIN. I see this same thing almost daily on slashdot, and am still amazed at it.
There's a TON of unexplored seriously delicious revenue streams going wasted, going by all the slashdot anecdotals I have read over companies insistence on not using open source when it can be proven it is a perfectly viable and less expensive and more secutre option.. Even WITH the big lawyers cut, the amount of money to be snagged from insane managers is
CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS ARE THE LITTLE GUYS FRIENDS
YES, not perfect, sometimes people get nothing, but at least it's something and it CAN and DOES cause widespread large scale socio/economic/political change.
If you are an employee, that is one thing, basically, you are screwed, especially if not unionized, BUT... as soon as you are a SHAREHOLDER, well, you got several more powerful legs to stand on. If people used those legs, we wouldn't hear as many of these "MS wins by default" horror stories.
Just generally speaking, not meant as advice, always check with appropriate mad dog mercenary counsel (choose only the best there, if they agree to take it on a percentage,it usually means they think it's a slam dunk), use of class actions and companies actions vis a vis shareholders is researchable on the net, and etc, yada, etc.YMMV. Closed track. Good Luck!
What's missed here is that NTP was formed largely because RIM was a first-rate jackass company.
Among NTP's primary shareholders are the actual inventors of the patents. Or perhaps I should say "were", as one of them recently died: RIM kept this bottled up in court that long. These inventors produced actual products at early computer tradeshows which ran email over a sophisticated wireless protocol to a PDA-like device. Sound familiar? The earliest such patents were filed in 1994 based on inventions several years earlier. Let's put this into context: the earliest Newton was in 1993, and the earliest similar device I am aware of was a PCMCIA pager card that could be put into the Newton circa 1995, enabling it to receive (but not send) messages over a pager network. This combination of technologies was both novel and original, and the inventors didn't just make them up to sell patents. But their company foundered.
Then came along RIM. RIM started selling the Blackberry and then started suing the daylights out of its competitors. Surely you remember this. RIM's nickname on The Register was "Lawsuits In Motion". When the original patent holders got wind of what RIM was selling, they realized it was largely a duplication of their patent. And so they contacted RIM and told them they were infringing. That's when RIM refused to return their calls. For a year.
This is not how ordinary companies operate. If someone owns a valid patent on your work, you don't refuse to even talk to them. So NTP was formed basically to force RIM to actually talk.
Legal battle ensues, and out come the slashdotters. NTP's patents are invalid and are getting all knocked down (um, the lynchpin ones are not). NTP is just a holding company to go after people (um, NTP was made to financially enable the original inventors to go after a specific company which was flagrantly violating their patent). Patents are evil (um, you know why patents exist, right? You're familiar with the evil that was the Trade Guild? No, I'm not talking about Star Wars).
RIM was repeatedly reprimanded in court by the judge for all sorts of obnoxious actions. And to top it off, RIM went to congress to ask them to override the judge because they'd given free blackberries to congress, and now wanted to claim that shutting RIM down would put the nation's security in jeopardy. I am not pulling your leg. Only Jack Abramoff could pull off a lobbying stunt more inappropriate.
And now the courts have sided ... against the slashdotters! How could the Supremes have not been reading the /. comment stream? What were they thinking?
Short answer: RIM is a nasty, obnoxious company which violated patents and sued people's pants off for things they didn't own. They got what they deserve. Too bad one of the original inventors didn't live long enough to see a dime from them.
So what you're saying is that there'll be good job opportunities as an assassin for the Taiwanese?
I really doubt many companies look at every single vendor the purchase from all the time to look for news of impending or active suits against them, and I doubt a company under attack would seek to publicise it much.
So even if a course of action takes a few years, it still could sneak up on some companies if they purchased before the lawsuit ever happened. Now if they purchased after the lawsuit started, then I have little sympathay for them...
I agree that in the particular case of Blackberry, things have looked a bit iffy for a while. But I'll bet a lot of companies thought they would shrug it off and have not really made many other plans as of yet.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
So why OSS?
This can just as easily happen with Microsoft, IBM, or any other big name. it is _JUST_ as likely that Apache violates a patent or right versus IIS violating such a right; windows -vs- linux; word -vs- openoffice. Whatever software there is, it can cause problems. This isn't an argument against or for OSS, so it's just flaimbait bringing that into it.
With paid software, they ?should? respond quickly (but keep in mind, they probably don't have to- it's the developers problem to pay for the rights to anything they already sold). With free software, you'll have tons of variations of workarounds and the ability to make one yourself.
-M
... that there are treaties between countries that recognize patents granted in other countries, that may be that case here...
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I know you shouldn't respond to trolls,But I really hate those who can't even troll correctly.If you are f#cking him in the @ss,YOU would be giving HIM the reach around-F#cktard.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Post some links, man! Good stuff...
This guy is way out there
Not really. Most of the time they just knock stuff off with no regard to patents anyhow, I doubt they'd even care.
The whole arguement is totally stupid; there's ten times the rick that under the current system, some company will bump off their top inventor so they don't have to honor whatever royalty-sharing agreements they signed and can keep 100% of the profits. Does it happen? Some tinfoil-hat wearing person can probably find a possible case or two but it's certainly not common.
455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
Software as a service, in many cases, makes a lot of sense. Any asset that you buy has a large up-front charge (whether it be real estate, commercial software, etc). Even if you are making your first business forray into OSS, there is an upfront cost of training, customization, etc. In any case where you would rent something, software as a service is a good analog, especially since there is essentially no secondary market for software- unlike being able to see a used car.
From an accounting standpoint, operational costs are handled differently than capitol expenses, and have different tax implications. From an IT standpoint, there are typically fewer resources required (if any) with software as a service. On the other hand, rich client applications typically still have better integration and reporting tools. Point being, there are many tradeoffs, and every business should check to see which fits best.
If my business depends on an OSS application, and it gets shut down, I can potentially go on about my business as I have the executables and wouldn't have to stop using them until someone came knocking at my door.
Having the source code is one thing (hurrah for OSS!) But even if RIM software was Open Source, you still wouldn't have the infrastructure to deliver the service anyway.
Although I am looking forward to LinNETs, your friendly Open Source/GNU cellular provider. (actually I would love to see this!). The simple fact is that many of the cellular providers will not take the risk of being dragged into this fight should it go against RIM, so they would probably shut the service provision down anyway, should it prove necessary. What we really need is a modern version of some of those old BBS networks, just based around VOIP and 802.11x technology. That way the software AND the infrastructure would both be free of central control! (Will the judges please pass out winners medals all around?)
It seems a little case called Amado vs. Microsoft got decided not all that long ago, David beat Goliath, and now, any new installation of Office 2003 that doesn't include SP2 will be considered "out of compliance with Microsoft's licensing requirements".
Sure hope there's not anything else in Office SP2 that's a problem... Sucks to be using closed-source software.
> ...I have the executables and wouldn't have to stop using them
> until someone came knocking at my door.
It's extremely unlikely that a patent owner would sue individual or small corporate users.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Interesting article from today about the Canadian government's reply, and the ongoing IP jurisdiction battle...
Canada wants to save Blackberry
US Patent nonsense can't cross the border
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=20924
Hey, Mr. Slippery, our Constitution expert...
In your proposed legal scenario when a patent dies with its inventor,
just how long do you expect to live after you invent something really novel and useful and make it a public knoledge in your patent application, while
letting everubody know that you are entitled to substantial royalties..
My guess is not too long: the greater the money in stake, the shorter your
life expectancy will be...
But that doesn't make it true. If my GM Celta has a part that was manufactured violating someone's patent, do you think I will have to replace said part when the patent holder wins their suit against GM? Nah, nah, nah. You can continue to use your copy of MSWord without problem. You will be what lawyers here call a bona fide third party, and your rights to use the software are assured.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
I really don't know details of patent law in the USofA, but down here (Brasil) things are not like you describe:
1. (L 9279/96, "Industrial Property Act") Actions performed by third parties without commercial goals and in private character are exempt from the patent monopoly (art 43, I);
2. Actions performed by third parties in experimental character or in relation with scientific research are exempt (art 43, II);
3. The preparation of medicine prescribed for a single person, made by a professional, and the resulting medicine, are exempt (III);
4. There are four other -- less relevant for our discussion here -- exemptions in the same article (43)
5. Patents can be licensed against the wishes of the holder (after three years from the beginning of the patent term) if: the patent is not explored by the holder (art 68, 1, I); or the holder abuses its rights or commits abuse of economic power (art 68, caput); or someone makes a "derivative" invention that is a significant technological advancement WRT the patented invention and can't reach an agreement with the patent holder (art 70); or in cases of national emergency or public interest -- declared by an act of the President (art 71), among other circumstances.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
No, you aren't. In the case of a patent infringement problem, all the source gets you is an opportunity to be sued by the patent holder.
Source or otherwise doesn't affect the effect of a patent. In any case, nobody is going to bother suing an individual open (or closed) source user. Having the source available just gives you a lot more flexibility in how you deal with it.
Open source is everything that closed source is. Plus the source is available.
And it's worse than that - at least here in the USA, you'd be subject to treble damages for knowingly violating the patent.
Only after you'd been explicitly warned, which could happen whether you're using closed or open source software.
---
Paid marketers are the worst zealots.
We just hired a crackberry for a VP role in our company. The first thing out of his worthless mouth was, "we need to centralize around communication. We need a blackberry server". I replied, "Blackberry requires an Exchange or Lotus Notes Server. We don't have either". After explaining to him the many services that we have which do the same thing, the coversation went directly to the battle over when the exchange and blackberry servers where going to get here. Fortunately, the "never" people won.
My point is, people are addicted to the devices not the services.
RIM's CEO has already commented on his thoughts of the patent system. He is obviously very careful from his words but you can sense the frustration.
http://www.blackberrycool.com/2005/12/20/001210/