Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Open Invention Network Expands Patent Protection

Posted by Unknown on from the gnu-patent-regime dept.

Thinkcloud writes "More than 700 new software packages including popular packages such as KVM, Git, OpenJDK, and WebKit will now receive royalty-free shelter under the Open Invention Network. This could make it more friction-free for organizations and developers to adopt and modify open source technology." OIN's press release has a bit more detail. They've greatly expanded their definition of the "Linux system" to cover a lot more core software with their defensive patent pool.

14 of 22 comments (clear)

  1. This is great, but... by Dorkmaster+Flek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's great and all, but the very existence of a "defensive patent" portfolio/company indicates to me that the system is totally broken.

    --
    I like to think of online DRM as something akin to a college -- you pay for lessons until you learn something.
    1. Re:This is great, but... by JAlexoi · · Score: 1

      And there is pretty much no balls behind those promises. Microsoft uses patents to attack features in Linux kernel, yet these guys are yet to release even a simple press release.

    2. Re:This is great, but... by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Is there anyone who doesn't know The System Is A Fraud? And yet, it seems foolish to ignore it. There's nothing hypocritical about maintaining a defensive patent portfolio and working to abolish software patents simultaneously. Now, if you were to launch a preemptive attack from that portfolio, that would be hypocritical...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:This is great, but... by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Don't worry, the politicians will fix it just as soon as they take care of more important issues like obscure contraception rules, symbolic budget showdowns, school prayer, etc.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    4. Re:This is great, but... by Dorkmaster+Flek · · Score: 1

      Oh I'm not saying they shouldn't be doing this, given how the current system works. It's totally prudent on their part.

      --
      I like to think of online DRM as something akin to a college -- you pay for lessons until you learn something.
    5. Re:This is great, but... by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      "system is totally broken"

      This phrase has lost all meaning on me. Humans break all things, including systems. They misuse them, abuse them. Every minor exception neglected by creators of the system, becomes a major use, because humans use the systems this way.

      Every system has its own purpose different (or narrowing down) from main human instinct - grab stuff lying around.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    6. Re:This is great, but... by Alioth · · Score: 2

      Have they? I know Ballmer has blustered about vague claims, but to my knowledge, Microsoft has never actually launched a direct patent attack against the Linux kernel.

      --
      Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
    7. Re:This is great, but... by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Because there's no money there... but they will attack anything that uses the kernel: Android, Nook, TomTom

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    8. Re:This is great, but... by bzipitidoo · · Score: 2

      Recall that SCO launched a direct attack, and MS backed them. SCO demanded a $699 license fee from every Linux user, alleging that there was patented technology in the Linux kernel. It was highly improper of SCO to hit up users, but MS did not discourage SCO from trying that, far from it. If there were any merits to their claims, SCO should have pursued developers and perhaps distributors, not end users. To use a car analogy, what SCO tried was like demanding payment from everyone who ever drove a Ford over some patents that Ford allegedly violated.

      The entire affair was based on the idea that software should be patentable. SCO was soundly defeated (thank you PJ!), but sadly, software is still patentable in the US. MS bears a great deal of blame for that. They have not lobbied for that fundamental change. Instead, they've bought into the insanity, going so far as to agree with those idiots running the entertainment industry. I can understand Big Media not getting it, but MS is supposed to be a savvy tech company. We all laugh when trolls like Eolas score big wins against MS.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    9. Re:This is great, but... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Now, if you were to launch a preemptive attack from that portfolio, that would be hypocritical...

      I disagree. Navigating and using an existing system is not equivalent to acknowledging that system as a good one.

      I didn't say it would be a bad idea, only that it would be hypocritical. It might be immoral, but it's probably less immoral than the next guy.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:This is great, but... by sjames · · Score: 1

      In a just world, SCO would be forced to refund all of those $699 licenses with interest before paying any other bill including legal fees and executive salary. After all, they licensed something they didn't even own.

      Of course, in a just world, the rotting zombie corpse of SCO wouldn't still be lumbering around rattling legal sabres.

    11. Re:This is great, but... by sjames · · Score: 1

      The system is broken because it's legal system allows itself to be used as a bludgeon to attack the innocent.

      Your analogy would be if we needed a police force to protect us from being shaken down by the police. And that would, indeed, be a broken system.

  2. there should be a GNU patent by mapkinase · · Score: 2

    GNU patent: every patent that is based on that patent (built on top of that patent, would be impossible without that patent) should be also a GNU patent.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    1. Re:there should be a GNU patent by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      Except that the system is rigged to make this impossible: patent fees are damn expensive, to make sure everyone defects in what is essentially prisoner's dilemma.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.