Slashdot Mirror
LinuxDefenders.org Launches To Fight Patent Trolls
eldavojohn writes "The Linux Defenders Network is a new organization sponsored by the Open Invention Network, the Software Freedom Law Center, and The Linux Foundation to help the community defend itself against patent trolls. Three models, or 'IP rights management tools,' are offered: Peer to Patent, Post-Issue Peer to Patent, and Defensive Publications. Mich Kabay's article in NetworkWorld cites an all-too-familiar incident from December, when General Patent Corp. announced it was working on behalf of Worlds.com to sue everyone — this probably could have been avoided with a little prior art help from the community. From the organization's about page: 'We encourage contributions from anyone that is interested in ensuring that innovation is not stifled by poor quality patents and is interested in assisting the patent office in its goal of improving the overall quality of patents.' Are these guys saviors arriving in the nick of time, or just another hopeless community effort to rein in the failing patent system?"
A site designed to educate what patent trolling is, and show current examples of patent trolling seems more logical to me. These cretins hide behind obfustification of the issue. A site that plainly cuts through the BS that is often the case of these trolls is what we need not a 'linux defender'. Troll the patent trolls don't defend against them.
So they're going to help improve the 'quality' of software patents so that patent trolls, rather than getting weak patents which can be easily challenged in court, will be able to get stronger, less contestable patents. They're going to publish prior art so that patent applications can be carefully worded to work around it. This may not be such a great idea.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
What we should do instead is raise money to buy an island and form a freedom-compliant government on it. The constitution of this island would state that everyone has total and complete freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom to information, with absolutely, positively, no exceptions.
I guess you haven't quite thought that out then. It would be a child abusers paradise. After all, they don't see what they're doing as wrong and as they're entitled to freedom of expression, you cannot convict them. Also, freedom to information means anyone would have completely unrestricted access to any financial information of yours plus any private data as well such as passwords and PIN numbers.
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
TBH you deserve it and so does everyone else that writes a software patent. I hope you've learned your lesson and thanks for doing your part to ruin the software industry.
That's why I doubt it can get enough contributors to make a difference.
As always, there is another solution: Let the US sink to wherever they feel comfortable, move to another country with no patent laws, and live happily ever after. Of course, said plan fails if you're in the US and don't want to move, and the new country should be heavily guarded against such tendencies...
However, given the current situation, I personally think this is the most viable route. Unless of course Obama turns out to be smarter than his campaign contributors.
Troll me if you want, but ask yourself: is a system where ideas can be monopolized, livable? It's not the idea, but the implementation, that adds value and takes work to achieve.
Also, take into account the fact that Free Software has no jurisdiction. People from all over the world are contributing, and they're not going to stop because one country acts stupid.
[pedantic] OK, so you're saying "PIN numbers", where PIN is "Personal Identification Number". Do you enter your "PIN numbers" at the "PIN number keyboard board" on the "ATM machines"? At least you could have been consistent, and used "password words" while you were at it? =:^) [/pedantic]
Meanwhile, while I agree with your general point, I believe it would have been made more effectively, at least to many here at /. (who pride themselves on being a "thinking" audience highly valuing freedom, true or not), had you not invoked the "Think of the children!!1!!111!" bit. Unfortunately, both it and the "war on terror" have been so overused by the fascist/authoritarian/big-brother types recently that they have lost much of their original effectiveness, and indeed, many of us have a gut reaction every time we see them invoked of "Oh, another proponent of /that/ stuff, time to watch my liberties as he's obviously trying to take one or more away, and is grasping for some semblance of justification."
So next time, consider leaving that bit out. The effect on personal financial and etc. information and passwords and the like, should be enough on its own to get people rethinking their position. The graphical physical reference, be it child abuse, rape your women, or indeed, personal anal penetration, really does more to hurt your case than help, at least here on /., tho it may arguably go a long way when targeting a different audience, the remaining "Bible, Bush & Homeland" types. (FWIW, the work "homeland" alone has strong fascist links, which is why I wondered why in the world the powers that be chose the particular term "Homeland Security". Could it be they were so indoctrinated they didn't realize the historical links of homeland and fatherland to Nazi Germany? Unless it was a deliberate reference?)
Duncan
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master,
and if you use the program, he is your master."
R Stallman
It's not the idea, but the implementation, that adds value and takes work to achieve.
This is a lot less clear cut than you seem to think. I am a student in the process industry. At the moment, as part of a project on process design, I'm researching patents. The process is the production of PV-grade silicon from quartz. There are often patents of things which have never been implemented, but are quite specific. For example, is the idea making PV-grade silicon from quartz? Or is it choosing to use a metallurgical-only route? Or is it choosing to use a Cao.SiO2 slag with blown air to purify it? Surely an idea as specific as the last one is worthy of a patent?
But this can also apply to software. After all, most of the elements of software can exist happily in the abstract (e.g. algorithms). Is an algorithm an idea or an implementation? Take the jpeg algorithm, it can't be used as it stands on a computer, but it is also a fully functional program in an abstract form. Idea or implementation?
All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.