Slashdot Mirror
Patent Case With FOSS Implications
ThousandStars writes, "SCOTUSBlog posted about the
liklihood that the Supreme Court will review whether an organization can get around software patents by completing the work in other countries. This case has huge implications for OSS projects with coders in the U.S., as it may inhibit, among other things, the ability of American coders to contribute to projects that violate U.S. software patents." The Patently-O blog gives background on the case.
Is there an intent to commercialise it ? If so, how will it be commercialised ?
From what's outlined on SCOTUSblog, it kind of sounds like they're concerned about software object code. I imagine there's no chance the court would decide that software patents are invalid, but maybe in the worst case it would still be possible for OSS programmers to work on patent-impacted projects by modifying/committing only non-impacted sections of the software and by avoiding any U.S.-hosted mirrors of projects or binaries?
I never vote for anyone. I always vote against.
-- W.C. Fields
According to my interpretation of the article, and the graphic provided, software developed totally in a foreign country (say Germany), would still create liability if it were to infringe upon a US patent!
Yahma
Stay Safe and Anonymous, use a Public Proxy when browsing the web.
It seems unintuitive that a US company can go around US laws knowing. Aren't there laws to prevent moving illegal acts offshore?
What did you eat today? http://www.atetoday.com/
Does anyone living outside of the US actually care about US patents?
Just a question.
People using html in email should be shot.
"This case has huge implications for OSS projects with coders in the U.S., as it may inhibit, among other things, the ability of American coders to contribute to projects that violate U.S. software patents."
It seems like they're talking about closing a pretty major legal loophole here. Why shouldn't it be illegal for an American in America to violate American patent law? I mean, if you want to say that software patents should be illegal anyway, that's fine, but preserving a loophole in the law probably isn't the best way to change the status quo...
Sounds like MS trying to pave the way for an
"Linux copies Windows"
"OSS is illegal"
"Linux is illegal"
gambit
Good luck with that, Microsoft, but I still will run Linux regardless
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
> This case has huge implications for OSS projects with coders in the U.S., as
> it may inhibit, among other things, the ability of American coders to
> contribute to projects that violate U.S. software patents."
According to the article the case has to do specifically with object code.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
The original article discusses code, which is a tangible component. But software patent claims tend to be method claims (i.e. a system that does...), meaning that the process, not the component is what is important to discuss. This seems to be trying to subtly shift software patent claims from methods claims to tangible artifact claims - this could have a huge impact from shifting infrignment notions from 'using' to 'having'.
"...it may inhibit, among other things, the ability of American coders to contribute to projects..."
Yup, indeed it will.
And the USA will not be as competitive in the world of software development.
Bullet, meet foot.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
And anyone claiming otherwise is in effect commiting fraud against others.
http://threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html
But maybe what is needed is complete suppression of human thought in order for there to9 be a revolt and change towards the recognition of what software really is.
How would anyone outside the project know that someone from inside the USA commited changes to version control to a projected hosted outside the USA? Also, who do all these patent problems benifit anyway? And is the USA simply firewalling themselves away from the rest of the world a viable option? Seems like it would make some corps happy.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
"Why shouldn't it be illegal for an American in America to violate American patent law? "
Shouldn't it be illegal for an American to violate minimum wage laws in foreign countries while the U.S. citizen is working from an office in the U.S.? Shouldn't it be illegal for U.S. to advertise cigarettes in foreign countries? Or Worker safety rules? Or avoid income tax by moving money outside the U.S.?
I'm not clear what you're saying... U.S. laws apply to U.S. citizens for things that occur in foreign countries? That's a novel idea for sure.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
That's likely to make it hard to teach the next generation how to program computers; that will be 'education', and I will not be teaching anyone if there is any chance that someone will slap a patent law suit on me. (Nor will I be paying for a patent licence).
And if the next generation don't know how, there will be no-one to fix the bugs after the current generation retires.
And we'll lose it.
When the Unisys/CompuServe gif controversy started, the GIMP ended up dropping support for gif, except in those countries where the gif patent was not active. It's likely that GIMP's gif loading and saving code did not come from those countries, which would force all copies of the GIMP to drop gif support.
Since the GIMP includes American coders, a coder whose country doesn't have an active LZW patent couldn't simply distribute a patch, because that would be similar to paying someone to avoid a software patent.
~~~
Click here, you know you wanna!
How is this case relevant ? There is a democratic process for changing this law, and it's not the judicial way. The judicial way is for interpreting the law.
... why not move to one of the many countries that allow that ? Why, venezuela comes to mind :-p
If you want to change the law by force
I can understand that a law exists that prevents items that violate US patent law from being exported, but why does the US have such a law? All it does is harm US manufacturers. It only makes sense for patents to apply where the product is actually used.
Assume a product is used in country A. There are no patents in country A that affect this device. The only patents on this device exist in the USA. Now, every country on the globe can build and ship this device to country A, EXCEPT the USA. How does this law make sense.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
If I am in the US of A and I violate a patent, it doesn't matter if I know that I'm violating the patent. It also doesn't matter if someone did the work offshore. Patents are harsher than copyrights. If buddy copys something and gives me the copy, buddy has violated the copyright, not me. If buddy gives me a gizmo that violates a patent and I use it then I am guilty of violating the patent. So, you can maybe get around copyright by taking the work offshore but you can't get around patents that way. That's because the end user can be found guilty of violating a patent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_infringement
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.
The patent holders can block the sale of offending products in countries that respect the patents, just the same as if those products were locally made. However, it would get a bit more difficult for the courts to demand documentation from a different country.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Could someone with copyright/patent on a compiler claim that any object code it produces is a derivative work since it uses their proprietary assembly-generating algorithm?
I think that's an interesting question that should be asked in court. I think it would make a mockery of software patents, which is a good thing. Neither alogrithms, business methods, nor software should be patented period!
FalconShould there be a Law?
There's already a form of IP to protect both... it's called Copyright.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Microsoft is one of the companies that hates software patents and only seems to get them in case someone tries to sue them over patent infringement (defencive patents).
Patents are not needed for a defensive purpose, if you want a defense against patent infringment all you have to do is to publish the "invention". Hell, Microsoft can publish their idea on MSDN, once so published it can be used as prior art against any claim by others as infringment. That's the whole idea behind patents, to have inventions published yet allow the inventor a limited period of tyme to benefit from the invention sl as to allow science, and culture, to advance. You only "need" to patent something if you are going to use it as a bludgeon against others.
FalconShould there be a Law?
This isn't just a case of the US shooting itself in the foot, and thus inhibiting its own abilities. This is a case of the US shooting itself right in the scrotum, destroying its ability to produce new programmers.
These days, many of the most talented commercial developers got their start working on open source software. It's a very good proving ground for new developers. Open source software provides a base upon which a new programmer can build, and thus employ code reuse to help them achieve their ideas.
Open source development tools, like GCC, also allow those with limited capital (ie. often teenagers and students) to begin to develop their own software. They no longer need to drop $250 for just the extremely limited student editions of Borland C++ or Microsoft Visual C++. Instead, they have powerful, professional tools right at their fingertips.
Anything that inhibits the ability of Americans to develop or use open source software is a direct attack on the next generation of American developers. Of course, nations like China, India, and Russia won't be so stupid. They'll allow their developers true freedom, and they will soon become the leading producers of computer programmers and software developers. America, on the other hand, will not have the facilities available to upcoming developers. And thus new American developers will stagnate, while those in other nations flourish.
"You're everywhere. You're omnivorous."
Considering all the newer algorithms are being patented, this may be a legitimate excuse. You could probably teach the stuff, but programming it for homework would likely be an infringement on the patents.
This might sound really dumb but OSS doesn't necessarily means commercial software.
I can imagine someone might patent a certain application which is doing X(Xpat) and some other people are writing an application which does X as well (Xoss).
X might be patented in the US which doesn't mean X is patented somewhere else.
Now if Xoss gets imported in the US it might become a patent issue in the US but for the rest of the world it isn't.
As far as I understand, the problem starts when US coders contribute to this software.
Which means, as soon as they apply their fingers to the code, they become liable for violating patent law, if they are a person requiring credit for their work.
People using html in email should be shot.
The correct term for softare patents is "fraud"
See my second response in this thread for clairification.
Just open up some anoymous proxies, for American developers. Let quality speak for itself, should OSS become illegal due to patents, will that stop joe six pack for downloading the best new OS 4 years from now, especially when it's free? Enterprises will be screwed, but who cares about them? Not me, i'll continue to work on whatever platform I like.
You're missing the point. Microsoft has software patents so when IBM says 'hey, you're infringing 200 of our patents' Microsoft can say 'well you're infringing 300 of ours, how about a cross-licensing deal where we get to use each others patents for free?'
I didn't miss the point. You yourself are saying software patents are used as a bludgeon to allow cross patent licensing. If someone else doesn't have a patent or not one that another party wants to use then simply by using software that's patented, even if they come up with the software on their own without even knowing about the software that was patented the then that patent is a bludgeon. "I came up with it myself and didn't know about any other software or a patent" is no excuse in court. This is a problem with patents in general but it's especially applicable for software and alogrithms. You then go on and say how patents on software can make it harder for small businesses to enter a market, or I'd add create a new market.
The problem is that the new strategy is to sell the patent to a company that doesn't actually produce anything, they just hold the IP. Since they don't make anything, you can't sue them for patent infringement so defensive patents don't work.
Yes, that was a point I was making. Defensive patents don't work, er the only reason for them is as bludgeon to prevent others from releasing software they've written themself, but they don't promote the advancement of science. If anything they hinder science. That's what happened to RIM with the Blackberry when a company that didn't make or produce any product or service sued RIM for violating a patent the company had they claimed was in the Blackberry.
FalconShould there be a Law?
It may slowly be dawning on Microsoft that software patents aren't always good for them, but in the past, Microsoft executives have stated quite clearly that they view software patents as a way of shutting down open source projects they don't like.
Furthemore, there is no such thing as a "defensive patent"; if Microsoft wants to protect itself against someone else patenting their idea, all they need to do is publish the idea. The only reason to use a patent is if you're going to threaten to assert it in court.
Most likely, Microsoft actually likes the current patent system because the current patent system is geared towards keeping new players out of the market. Under the current patent system, Microsoft itself might not have been able to come into existence, and Microsoft probably wants to keep patents as a means of killing the "next Microsoft".
Furthermore, the patentable elements of software have nothing to do with your "things universally accepted as not being patentable".
Oh, it'll change. Run an extrapolation..go ahead..just a mental bar knapkin outlook of what the landscape will be like in ten years if patents continue like they are now.
Got a picture yet? Can you do simple sums? You seeing it yet? Total fuckeditude? You can't code a thing without it violating a patent?
You think companies will put up with it? You think the public is going to stand for no-warranty products forever, or actually keep paying the ever increasing costs due to back and forth patent litigation?
Ha! Dreamer! People can and do revolt against business stupidity. It doesn't happen every day, but it does happen.
You are one class action lawsuit away from software as a business being altered dramatically, merely from liability issues and their get out of jail free "no-warranty" license" card.
They have pushed that monster scam ripoff for 20 years too long and the people are getting closer to pushing back.
One of the first things that will happen is to knock them back down their patent perch and restrict them to copyrights where they belong, because, if it is a patentable product-it needs a consumer warranty.
It's coming, better be prepared for the trillion dollar class action lawsuit against the big software houses, then on to all of them who have bogus EULAs. Fair notice. Keep insisting your scribblings and caffeine and sugar induced typings are patentable, the tally just rises daily. Payback is gonna be sweet.
At least that's how I interpret it.
A company can contract to China where they pay workers less than our minimum wage. It would be illegal here, but not there. So they move the work to China. Or Mexico. Effectively bypassing an American law.
But it's different for people. For example, an American cannot go to Amsterdam, then come home and test positive and keep their job. Or even better yet, read up on Dmitry Sklyarov. A Russian citizen that broke an American law on Russian soil. Then had the bad fortune to come here. And get arrested for it!
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Yes. Everyone working for a company that sells goods in the US.
I have no doubt that the court will find that patent infringements outside the US will be punishable in the US because of two reasons:0 17201&from=rss
1: thats what the software industry wants
2: the US even convicted a guy for running an online gambling site in the UK - why should they handle patent infringement different? http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/07/2
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
Remember, the Supreme Court does not over-turn laws in the way you might think they do - they merely interpret the laws, which in the case of conflicting laws means determining which law "trumps" the other, in the scenario ruled upon. This is an important distinction. As an imaginary example, consider a state passing a law that says it is illegal to kill dogs. Then someone is attacked by a dog and kills it. Suppose that the Supreme Court took the stance that there is a constitutional right to self-defense, and naturally the constitution is higher on the pecking order than a state law. As in any case, the law would still stand, but in situations where self-defense is in play, other courts would now follow the precedent of the Supreme Court and find people not guilty. In all other situations, the law would remain in effect.
You can see then, that the justification that the Supreme Court gives for its rulings are just as important as the ruling itself, as they determine what aspects of the situation ruled upon are important in the ruling, and thus what situations the precedent will apply to in the future.
Some courts have been in favor of making very wide rulings that cause sweeping change to the way our laws are viewed. John Roberts, the current Supreme Court Justice, however, believes in narrow rulings. He has been quoted as saying "If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, in my view it is necessary not to decide more". By focusing tightly on the details of a particular case, and not the wider social phenomena, you usually end up with less controversial rulings, but also tend to support the status quo.
All of which is a long way of saying that you won't get the answers you want, unless you can find someone with such patent who tries to enforce it.
There's clearly little benefit for countries with small patent portfolios to agree to enforce US patents, but the US simply has to link patents to trade agreements to make this work anyway, similar to what has been done with DRM - see http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/15/13 57232 for a recent relevant example of this.
how hard is it to just create a fake online identity and contribute code to projects that way? If you find a bunch of people named Bush George in Belgium contributing to open source projects maybe they aren't really in Belgium.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire