Slashdot Mirror
SFLC Argues On Same Side As Microsoft
MCRocker writes in with news that, while a few weeks old, didn't get a lot of traction before the holidays. The Software Freedom Law Center is one of the staunchest defenders of FOSS out there. The SFLC is arguing on the same side as Microsoft in a patent case before the Supreme Court. The case, "Microsoft vs. AT&T," turns on whether U.S. patents should apply to software that is copied and distributed overseas. Groklaw has more nitty-gritty details. In the Linux-Watch article, the SFLC's legal director, Daniel Ravicher, is quoted: "I expect many people will be surprised that the Software Freedom Law Center has filed a brief with the Supreme Court in support of Microsoft. In this specific case, Microsoft and SFLC are both supporting the position that U.S. software patents have no right to cover activity outside of the United States, especially in places that have specifically rejected software patents."
An F/OSS supporter that is actually honest enough to see that what their 'enemy' is doing is only beneficial for the whole. Kudos to them, I say. At least they know what they stand for (as is obvious from their name, really :) and don't blindly deny the possibilities that this case gives them.
*cheers*
Coz eternity my friend, is a long *ing time.
I think the title of this item should have been "Microsoft agrees with the SFLC"! It is my understanding that the SFLC's position hasn't changed. It is just Microsoft's position which is surprising. What? Microsoft defending the rights of countries that do NOT support patents? I for one am surprised!
If US patents apply to activities of US corporations outside the US then this will mean that US companies are not able to compete as effectively in other markets. If it is possible for non-US software companies to undercut US-based ones in places like the EU and south-east Asia then this will have a serious effect on the US software industry. Anyone starting a software company will be likely to seriously consider starting it outside the US, even if they are from there. This will give a lot of weight to those campaigning to get software patents abolished in the USA, since they will be able to point to clear evidence that their existence is harming the economy. If this succeeds, then it will remove the 'aligning our IP laws with the US' argument that keeps being waved around by software patent proponents in the EU.
If the case goes the other way, then it means that those of us outside the USA will be able to get software products that are either better or cheaper (because they will either include code not found in the US versions, or because they will not include patent royalties) than those available in the USA. This can, again, be used as evidence of software patents harming the US economy.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I have read articles wherein he crucifies Linux and another where he praises it. I am not sure exactly where his loyalties lie.
I'm not exactly sure why he should have any.
Let us assume, however, for the sake of argument, that he has some. Perhaps they are to ideas rather than to groups or "movements." I understand that to people not used to supporting ideas this can be confusing.
See the very subject of the article.
KFG
The law is 35 USC 271, section f, which is designed to stop people making components of a patented invention and shipping them overseas in order to be assembled into something that would breach the patent, had the act occured in the US.
In this case, the software is apparently developed in the US and shipped overseas.
Yes, it's a disgusting overreach of US patent law into foreign jurisdictions. And yes, software patents are evil, and hopefully unlawful. Go Eben and Dan!
Still, the SFLC takes a very different position compared to Microsoft, although technically on the same side. Microsoft argues that U.S. patents have no right to cover activity outside of the United States, especially in places that have specifically rejected software patents.
The SFLC argues that software patent are not valid at all under U.S. laws (specifically 35 U.S.C. 101) and prior Supreme Court decisions (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972)). The Federal Circuit has repeatedly decided otherwise (In re Alappat, disregarding the Supreme Court's precedent as unclear); the Amicus Brief challenges this practice. (Go ahead and read the Brief, it's pretty readable even by non-lawyer standards.)
So although Microsoft and the SFLC are on the same side, I'm quite sure Microsoft would have preferred stating its case without this brief.
I have read articles wherein he crucifies Linux and another where he praises it.
Possibly because there are some situations where Linux deserves praise and others where it deserves scathing criticism ?