Slashdot Mirror
Alan Cox on Patent Law and GPLv3
tykev writes "Linux kernel guru Alan Cox talks about kernel features, cooperation with hardware vendors, and software patents. From the interview: 'I don't think [Microsoft's patent threats] are the biggest danger. As Microsoft has been finding out recently it is the patent trolls, and organisations with buried patents in interesting areas that are the biggest threat in the USA. The real answer to that problem, however, is to pull the USA back into line with the majority of the world which simply does not recognize patents on software but respects them as literary works subject to copyright law.'"
suck it niggers!!
:^(|)
...sailing the sausage seas!
Patent rants in 5..4..3..2..1..
You can't dismantle organically-evolved law from the top-down; that's never, ever worked in any society and always results in disaster.
but some of the shills here on slashdot, bought and paid for by microsoft, will argue that alan cox is proposing a very radical solution. They will suggest the very fundamentals of the freemarket system are at stake; to suggest dissolving what is offered in america would be akin to pullling the pubic hair from a teenage girls blissful nether regions, strand by strand, before she is able to mature. Thus denying her the chance to jump head first and stark naked into Friedman's fantastical whirlwind freemarket extravaganza.
It is the government that is the biggest danger in the USA, not the other parties mentioned.
Now, if you could seize control of Microsoft (or any other patent troll org) by spending a ton of cash to win a popularity contest every four years, then they would be the most dangerous organizations.
Regards.
How can you honestly be opposed to software patents but be ok with considering them "literary works".
How we know is more important than what we know.
No s***. But "recently"? Part of Microsoft's stated reason for building up its patent collection over the past 15 years has been to defend against patent trolls Microsoft knew would be coming for Microsoft ASAP. (In fact, I think a near-dup Slashdot story in the past week has Gates quoted around 1993...)
pull the USA back into line with the majority of the world
I thought the US is the majority of the world...
At least my TV says so.
Microsoft simply can't sue individual OSS developers or users. And anyways, if Samba works the best with Windows, OSX, and Linux, people will still be using MS's "standard". Same goes for Kerebos and any other embraced and extended protocols.
Linux (and OSS) needs to support Windows. To do that, (in theory) they need to infringe on MS patents. It really is in Microsoft's best interests to allow this to happen, as it keeps people on their protocols, and tied in to their software.
The point of the threat was to scare commercial OSS users (the ones that can't take the PR hit of a lawsuit) into buying the Novellisoft "covenant" thingy that people have been bitching about. They never would have even sued those companies the Novell deal targeted. It just doesn't make sense, and would destroy their image even more.
Their plan? They know the power of open-source software. They know how well it works together, and with proprietary software (I think you can even use a Samba server to be a PDC in a Windows domain). They just want to keep people using their software in some form, rather than not at all. (If I didn't want to get sued, I'd force Windows to work with NFS, not Linux to work with SMB, or become an all-ODF shop...) This way, they can still cling on.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
We let manufacturing jobs slip into other countries, and are told to be reassured - we get to keep the good engineering jobs. Yet they also set up the system that does not promote innovation, but rather one that is stacked in favor of the big players but with "good" intentions came the unintended consequences - like how leechers game the system.
How can people stay positive on an economy that seems neither ultimately market-based rather than litigation based and where what used to be virtues (hard work, creativity, taking a chance) are punished by the government and unworthy trolls/big_players get the gains instead?
Warning Soprano's spoilers in subject.
SHUT YOUR CUM-HOLE.
What about Pilsner Urquell?
I'm looking to the satire loophole applying to software - that you can use code in order to make fun of it.
I don't think you know what a patent troll is. Patent trolls usually don't make anything so you can't counter sue them, unless you patented the business idea of buying patents and suing other companies.
The world lived in dark ages until the creation of the USA. Maybe that event should be appended to the Genesis, but I digress.
I find that a lot of people have a lot of advice when it comes to the US. How to handle the economy, how to run elections, etc etc. Yet, it seems to me as though the US is basically Number 1 at just about everything, including science and research. By number 1, I really mean better than the rest of the world together.
So while nothing is perfect, even in the US, I do think that we are doing it quite right.
So please, let's start respecting patents and lets stop violating them at every opportunity. Maybe then, Linux wouldn't be a Unix wannabe with a touch of Windows, but something new and creative.
Linux violates 235 Microsoft patents.
So, how exactly does a patent collection defend against patent trolls?
The whole idea of the patent troll is that they don't have any business to defend so that they can use their patents offensively without worrying about (non-karmic) retaliation.
*sigh* back to work...
I don't think that patents are an entirely faulty method of protecting software that is innovative. the real reason I feel that they are horrible for software is their 20 year lifespan. compare that to Moore's law. a single lucky patent of the right idea can guarantee you a monopoly for generations of software. 20 years is likely enough to get you sole rights to an idea for all of its useful lifetime. imagine if the patent for the typewriter were to be set to expire next year? as society continues to advance at faster rates the lifetime of a patent needs to get accordingly shorter or it will stifle creativity and slow human advances to a rate set by the lifespan of the patent.
thats right, I rarely use capitals. deal with it. but don't mistake my laziness for stupidity
Horseshit. There's nothing "organically evolved" about the disaster that is US software patent law. There's one ridiculous appellate ruling, from which the rest of this shitstorm has inexorably followed.
The entire history of time until 1998: for the most part, neither algorithms nor business practices are held to be patentable, since they are both held to be "abstract ideas," which are not patentable. There are exceptions, but they are rare.
The State Street ruling, 1998: Hey, let's change the legal test for patentable software from "causing a physical transformation" to producing "useful, concrete and tangible results". Vague enough for ya? Awesome. And while we're at it, let's also apply the same completely meaningless legal test to business practices, too!
The history of software patents since 1998: One patent on Zocor! One patent on Viagra! SIXTEEN patents by Microsoft of movement and positioning of a cursor! Gee whiz, maybe we should fix this problem. Oh, wait... we wouldn't want to "dismantle organically-evolved law from the top-down", because Anonymous Coward says that such actions always result in DISASTER!
"Dismantle organically-evolved law from the top-down". Fantastic. What the hell does that even *mean*?
Copyrights and patents of any way, shape, or form prevents competition of any kind. If someone can't compete without constantly innovating then they deserve nothing.
You inflate the value of M$'s legacy code and misunderstand M$'s goals. This is evident when you say:
Microsoft simply can't sue individual OSS developers or users.
That's obvious, despite attempts to extort and control individuals by our slow learning, MAFIAA friends.
They hope to control distribution and make money that way. Don't believe me? Ask Novel and Xandros.
M$ is a patent troll and a very dangerous one. With M$, software has always been a tool to make money. They owned it, promoted it and charged for it. They want to do the same thing with all free software because they know that the world has changed and non free is out of gas. Back in 1993 when Gates realized how things worked, he knew which way his company would go and has worked to strengthen the very laws he decried. The dangerous part is how such notions have warped morals and US government policies. "Owners" have convinced a large portion of the US government that "IP" is the way to tax the world, to become some kind of thought and idea owners and make everyone else do the dirty work.
Getting rid of software patents takes care of a lot of problems. It forces M$ to compete as a normal software company. More importantly, it restores people's liberty to code. Liberty is something the US needs a lot more of if it's to regain it's former moral character. Software freedom is a small step in that direction but it enables much more. Patents are a huge threat to software freedom and without software freedom there will be no free press or ability to organize and otherwise enjoy every other freedom. With those freedoms, we can start pushing for other and better laws like competitive networks, competitive healthcare, reasonable public schools and so on and so forth. Without those freedoms, we will all eat the current bullies dog food.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
If you are sued on patent violation claims, and you don't have your own patent collection, you are screwed. If you have a fat collection then you counter-sue, because the other party most likely is violating one of your patents; in the end you'll most likely end up cross licensing each other patents and move on.
I know, is stupid as hell, but it's the way it works right now. Thank the US of A for the idiocy of the patent system.
Of course, if the patent troll is nothing more than a bunch of lawyers with a stupid patent, then no patent portfolio will be big enough to countersue, since the troll is just that: a creativeless entity (with no business model besides suit filing) whose only purpose is to stiff innovation (think Eolas).
The system is so stupid and anti-innovative it stopped being funny long ago.
Life isn't like a box of chocolates. It's more like a jar of jalapenos. What you do today, might burn your ass tomorrow.
I don't think that patents are an entirely faulty method of protecting software that is innovative.
Patents don't protect software, whether it's innovative or otherwise. They protect an idea, whether it was incorporated into the patent holder's software or not, and they also deny use of that idea to others, even if it was obtained independently.
And that's why software patents are bad. They freeze advances in that area for fear of litigation on similarity, which more often than not is nothing more than a malicious attempt to prevent improvements on the idea from creating competition.
If you just want to protect the actual software, that's what copyright does perfectly well, without denying progress to others.
Like in the forest, you look for the bears, but it's the snakes and cobras that ultimately get you. You don't see 'em until it's too late.
Everyone looks and waits to be sued by Oracle, AMD, Ford, GM, Union Pacific, Amtrak, United, Fidelity, Morgan, Carnegie, Microsoft, IBM, Boeing, Raytheon, Intel, Nike, McDonalds, Disney, or any other household name.
But it's some un heard of patent troll, some unknown law firm from the middle of nowhere, who will kill you at the end . . . .
The snakes who sneak around the darkness of the floor of the forest . . . .
From the playgrounds of the world, I am nasty . . . . Making kids cry . . . .
The padlocked.swings
the following conditions are true:
- Patents and copyrights must have a limited time frame, and can not be extended (don't make me talk about that mickey mouse thing)
- All copyrighted materials must be registered at a central repository, and accessible to all for perusing. Otherwise, you don't the protection of the law. If you don't register, your work becomes public domain.
- All patented "inventions" must be registered at a central repository, and accessible to all for perusing. If you are patenting software, all your source codes about the patent must be in the repository, and accessible to all. If you are patenting a certain method on chip design, all your schema and related materials must be in, and accessible to all. Same thing for any other patents, regardless whether it is an avionic patent, a chair design, a method on desalinating sea water, etc. If the materials about your patent are not in (or incomplete), then you don't receive any law's protection, all you can do is to consider as industrial secrets, or some such. And anyone with the right skills should be able to use that materials and come up with exactly the same result that is describe in the patent application document. If people can't get the same result, you lose the patent, even if the patent has been issued, and you get slapped a fine for wasting people's time and money.
- There should be a probation period when people can submit prior art related to an application. Just like before you are issued a marriage certificate, it is published in the city hall so anyone can protest if he/she has the evidence. Now, no one can come up with some internal code (or schema) which has has never been published to the public or registered as patent and expect to contest it. Well, you kept it secret, someone came up with another (or even the same way) to do the same thing, and applied for a patent. You can't say anything, you made your choice to keep it secret.
- All copyrights and patents must be no longer than 20 years and can not be extended. The copyrighted materials automatically become public domain as soon as the author is declared dead. I think 20 years is already ridiculously long, given the pace of technology advancement. Setting the protection period to a shorter time can also help to accelerate progress as well, so it's good. Look at the current state of copyrights, a lot of authors are dead, but their materials are still copyrighted. The dead can't create anymore, so what is the copyright protection for anyways? You might say someone might have some dark intention, but that's not what copyright and patent laws should care about.
- Applicants are charged a flat fee for each application, and the fee is indexed to the inflation rate every year.
As long as there are reasonable restrictions, I'm all for copyright and patents. You should be able to copyright or patent anything.
Someone had earlier posted about the four different types of "intellectual properties" - patents, copyright, trademark and trade secrets. I always find it pretty amazing that software seems to be the only field where all 4 protections could be available on the same piece of code.
A piece of code can be protected by patents, can be copyrighted, trademarked and even held a trade secret (closed source). What's so special about software that it mandates so much protection? I'd love to see just one protection available for software. For instance, if it's trade secret (closed source) then you don't get patent or copyright protection. If it's open source, then you get only copyright protection. For really core and non-obvious algorithms, you can get patent protection, but you will lose copyright protection in that case (say you will need to submit the code as part of the patent application, making it public domain).
Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes. - Mahatma Gandhi
Think before you type. A patent-troll is usually defined as a company that makes no product and offers no service, instead existing *only* to extract money from other companies by threathening them with patents. As such, owning a million patents will be no defense against a patent-troll whatsoever. Since they literally do nothing, there is little chance that they will be infringing any of your dear patents.
How do you figure ? A patent-troll is a company that produces no product and offers no service. They exist *only* to extract money by threathening with their patent-portofolio. As such, there is little chance that they'll be violating any of your patents. How could they when they literally don't do or produce *anything* ?
The principle you mention, a kind of Mutually Assured Destruction, works when two large companies, both with patents in eachothers fields clach. Microsoft certainly infringes IBM-patents, and vice versa, which means both of them will surely suffer if they figth it out, which means they probably won't.
This, however, doesn't apply to a patent-troll. It doesn't do or produce anything, so it also doesn't infringe anything.
Which is precisely the reason AC thinks they are MORE dangerous than companies like MS.
Look, there literally infinite numbers of ways to do the following:
x-y=1
A patent would protect the full million ways to arrive at this result.
Copyright would recognize every different way to arrive at this result.
And since software is nothing else that
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The US revolution a succesful one? Ask a black slave back then, or a Native American.
And I wonder how many of those principled gentlemen had slaves. G. Washington did, I am too lazy to find about others.
As for the success of Revolutions all is relative. You say other revolutios were a disaster, that is clearly bullshit. Revolutions like the Soviet, French and Mexican one allowed hughe swathes of the opressed population to better themselves. You can say whatever you want about Stalin the monster, but once he was gone life in the USSR was immensily better that under Tzarist Russia 100 years earlier, ditto for Mexicans after our Revolution and to a very high degree for France, who became a worldwide power in the 19th century.
The US was in the brink of collapse thanks to a bunch of inhuman racists (whose descendants mantained an apartheid state well into the XXth century. So much for "succeessful" revolutions) defending slavery. The point I am trying to make is tha the US founders were not exceptional, they were flawed as the leaders of any other political movement. The reverence with which they are treated by so many USians reminds me the best days of personality cult in some Eastern BLock countries.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
ahahahhha haha ha ha
Oh! You mean you weren't joking?? 8-O
Man talk about tunnel vision.
"...pull the USA back into line with the majority of the world which simply does not recognize patents on software but respects them as literary works subject to copyright law."
That'd be beyond beautiful. If anyone wants to muster up ammo for the debate, please consider reading (late) Phil Salin's amazing article:
http://www.philsalin.com/patents.html
"If all software were public domain, there would be nothing preventing people from releasing GPL'd software as binary only, and refusing to share the modifications. (because there is no longer anything that holds them to the copyleft license)"
I think that statement nicely illustrates the attitude of GPL proponents. The idea is to compel everyone to release all code modifications, ever. You explicitly state that you prefer compulsory code release, under legal threat, to public domain. Works in the public domain are free for everyone, without restriction.
Consider this suggestion: in this hypothetical situation, if you want to release all modifications to the code (and, as established, all published code is public domain), do so. Don't whine when others exercise their freedom of choice differently from you. I've got news: I don't approve of your choice either, and you'd probably blow a capillary if my views were forced upon you. You're about forcing others to live/code according to your beliefs, and that's wrong.
AC, Anonymous Coward? ;)
Aaaaaiight, she says the US revolution was indeed successful, and that you need to get a grip on current reality.
Historical injustices cannot be infinitely redressed. It's more important that we get our CURRENT political situation in hand than carp about irremediable mistakes of the distant past. Stop worrying about freeing the slaves and start worrying about rigging of elections.
You missed the point. The real purpose of Patents is to slow the rate of innovation to the point where society (and Law) can keep up. The Patent time frame is set to allow around a generation to adapt. Many people (including lawyers and judges) need that much time to come to grips with the many ramifications of change. That is why the only things a patent holder can really do (forbid use, or liscense use at restrictive rates)act to limit others from using an idea. It's all just a delaying mechanism. It might even be a necessary one. Future Shock and all that.
Everybody knows 3 people with my name.
"No matter what laws you enact, they will be abused in ways you do not approve of."
That is a truely important lesson to learn if you want to improve the Public Situation. It's a shame that Legislators seem never to understand that.
Everybody knows 3 people with my name.
The US revolution a succesful one? Ask a black slave back then, or a Native American. And I wonder how many of those principled gentlemen had slaves. G. Washington did, I am too lazy to find about others.
Evidently you are unaware of historical fact about slavery, the African diaspora and ultimately where those slave ships sailed to from the African coastline! Quoting http://www.mexconnect.com/mex_/feature/ethnic/bv/s pec0303.html:
BTW. Mexico did not officially abolish slavery until 1829. Mexico did in fact have a particularly dark involvement in the transfer of enslaved Africans to other parts of the Americas.
You can say whatever you want about Stalin the monster, but once he was gone life in the USSR was immensily better that under Tzarist Russia 100 years earlier,
A few million dead Ukrainians may beg to differ with you. Look up 'Holodomor'.
ditto for Mexicans after our Revolution...
Quoting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Revolution#Th e_Mexican_Revolution_and_its_place_in_world_histor y:
With some sucesses in the late 1700's and very early 1800's maybe...however there are a few big historical events which suggest something totally opposite. France may have perceived itself as a world power in the 19th century and beyond, but French blunders and failures in/at Waterloo, WW I, and WW II seem to indicate otherwise.
Integrity is what you are when nobody is looking.