I have never used it, and its data storage limitations (250MB??) are ridiculously small for the price ($99/yr?), given free email storage upwards of 1GB. However, I was wondering what others' experiences were?
Brought to you by the same people who advocate counterproductive warmongering as foreign policy and at the same time refuse to aid development of health, education, and basic infrastructure in debt laiden countries that can foster terrorist ideals (and incentives, given the insurmountable debt owed to the first world and a corresponding lack of aid).
For those who don't want to read the article (or links), I believe the gist is as follows:
- The rumour for widescreens is substantiated by an internal Asustek memo indicating that Apple is buying wide screen laptops.
- The forthcoming iBook update is at least furthered by the lack of an iBook update in a very long time (for iBook updates). See, e.g. Macrumours Buyers Guide. It's been 274 days since an iBook update, where the average is 158. It's writing on the wall.
- It almost certainly won't have an Intel processor. Apple's plans to move to Intel supposedly start in Q1 2006.
Both patents and lawyers are utilities and have no motivation of their own. While they may stop innovation, they are no more proactive or caring than a wall placed to move water in a certain direction.
The wall, in this analogy, is placed by someone else. That would almost be the legislators, were it not for the heavy handed corporate lobbying that drives them, who are in turn driven by expectations of greater profit, and fear of lost income, in the absence of their protectionist lobbying. Even that is overly simplistic, given the long history of patents and their perceived positive effects on society, and the prohibitively costly access to judicial representation and remedies by the common person.
Tongue in cheek, patents and lawyers prevent innovation. The cause, and blame, is much more complex, I humbly submit.
Would it be hypocritical to find bittorrent absent of copyright infringement, and then lawyers and patents guilty of stymieing innovation? (Or would that be overly simplistic?)
When it's being advertised as a hack-challenge, the incentive to disclose is greater, since there is a greater assumption that someone else is going to figure it out:
If you disclose first, you receive praise and recognition. If you discover a hack but only disclose after someone else, you are deprived of this praise and recognition.
If someone honestly believes no-one will figure out their clever hack before the product is released, there might be some incentive to holding onto it, for later malicious exploitation.
The value of each hack is decreased for advertised challenges since there is an avenue of disclosure with reward, so the likelihood of a hack remaining exclusive to people who don't disclose is decreased.
It's not about software. It's about culture. It's about the fabric of our lives (and I don't mean cotton).
Ironically, the multi-billion dollar cotton subsidies to US farmers is one of the biggest hitches in completing the Doha development round of the WTO.
For the cost of these subsidies, America could pay the farmers a golden parachute of twice what it costs for them to work, and buy it from the 3rd world at a tenth of the price. Everyone benefits. Except the American farmer's lobbists.
(Note, this isn't just a problem with America; it's just notable that its' cotton in the USA. Other rich countries have their own caveats.)
The clever among us are wondering how a 10 second blast can kill so many things on the planet, when half the planet will be on the far side of the burst (a planet that would presumably absorb a great deal of the radiation). It turns out (From TFA) that the burst theoretically destroys the ozone layer, undermining our protective layer against solar radiation, until the ozone layer replenishes. The blurb is a touch misleading.
From what I vaguely recall, one of the greatest risks of a chimera (aside perhaps from the slippery moral slope), is the risk of a genetic material from diseases that affected their species making a jump to the human species. In essence, diseases that affected that species may be dormant or preserved in those animals, and unleashed, so to speak, in the presence of foreign material such as human organs.
For example, in this case rabbits: a viral pandemic that killed all but the few naturally-immune bunnies may have left remnants of its genetic material in their DNA. All living bunnies are immune, having derived their genetic material from the bunnies that survived the pandemic. No humans however, have that immunity. Crossing the species procures the possibility of a transfer from bunnies to humans.
How plausible this is, I couldn't really say. But I seem to remember it having some merit when juxtaposed with concerns over xenogenic transplants, concerns which seem applicable here also. Though the probability of this happening may be low, the damage may be astronomical since it could concoct a disease wholly unknown to science.
I've remembered things because I've said to myself "I will remember this moment." One of them was when driving a Previa from up the north-east US seaboard, while eating a bag of doritos. Another was as an infant, choosing to drink milk after hearing my mother say that I wouldn't.
I think the level of consciousness a moment has affects our capacity to (and interest in) remembering them. But this can be a function of pure will.
Mind you, there is no telling how many of these willed memories have been forgotten. None, that I can recall.:-)
I went to Romania, not exactly the pinacle or bastion of freedom and democracy, and on entry was asked simply where I was going, why and for how long I was staying. Nothing else. This country was communist in 1989, and travel restrictions seem less severe that the USA? Maybe this is cause for Americans to pause for some deep reflection on what they were fighting for, and what they really won, at the end of the cold war.
Copyright law does not have any language regarding intent that I'm aware of.
It is an infringement... that the person knows or should have known infringes copyright or would infringe copyright (Copyright Act, s. 27)
Intent is codified in at least some statutes in this language or similar through the phrase "knows or should have known". That snippet is from the Canadian Copyright Act.
However, even absent the explicit statutory requirement of intention, in most civilized constutional legal regimes you cannot be imprisoned for absolute liability offences. In other words, if there is a threat of imprisonment, the prosecutor has to show intention. In the least, there is a defence in due diligence. You can't chuck people in jail for transferring something they didn't realize was copyright. The heavy penalties actually seem to work against the regime of copyright enforcement, in this respect.
Canadians pay a tax on all materials used to store digital data, which licenses them to reproduce copyrighted works.
Part VIII of the Copyright Act is the section you are referring to, and it only covers blank audio media (CD's, tapes, etc.), and similarly only remunerates musical works.
It does not indemnify you from prosecution for broadcasting; it only covers 'private copying', not public distribution. Neither does it cover film or literary works.
It was enacted to remunerate artists for private copying happening with audio tapes, and its arbitrary limitations to audio media and musical works persist. Its indemnification is similarly limited to musical works.
Are BitTorrent users more vulnerable legally (not practically) since they automatically upload? I'd think that makes them distributors, which presumably brings higher penalties than consumption.
That depends on your legislation. In Canada, for example, you only infringe copyright if you intended to infringe it. The high penalties associated with infringement of copyright, ie. criminal sanctions, leads to a high burden on the crown to prosecute.
So if a tech-unsavy person is uploading while downloading as part of the protocol, s/he is likely not intending to infringe copyright in the uploading, and therefore likely not guilty of an infringement.
However, the downloading itself may be an infringement, and by virtue of clicking the link, you have shown intention (though shown, it's not proven; accidental clicking, etc.).
Incidentally, I do not know what would happen if you were downloading a copyrighted movie you already own (fair use/dealing), and you were aware of the uploading. In that case you may be infringing copyright, but at the same time exercising your right to a backup, though to exercise that right through the bittorrent protocol, the only means of acquiring a backup given the DVD copy protection, you must redistribute and inherently infringe portions of the copyright.
it is either just as easy to go from Windows to Linux as it to go from Mac to Linux because I used a common API (like QT) or it just as hard to go from Windows to Linux as it is Mac to Linux because I used a native API.
You have answered your own question.:) The implication of a Mac and Windows port is that they, for purely economic reasons in the least, have a created common API. Were it purely a Windows game, it is less likely that they would have used a common API. The existence of a common API is cheaper porting.
In the event that they do not have a common API, at least with the Mac port they have identified the areas that are Windows-only and made them Mac compatible. Therefore, having a port already, when contemplating a port to Linux they can estimate the software development required. In other words "this is what we had to do to make it work on a Mac, and we think the following similar things we'll have to do to make it work on Linux". Getting this estimation approved by management could be itself considered half the battle.:)
Anyone interested in passively promoting development of World of Warcraft on Linux through a petition can have a look at this site. With a Mac port already, they're more than halfway there.
I don't think such a defense would be very plausible in general. And for example, closed source program writers are probably just as much threatened (if not more) than open source authors about the jpeg patents, because the holders are just in it for the money (and not to prevent others from using jpeg compression). See e.g. this message.
There are two good points here: 1. Open source has fantastic goodwill, and 2. You can't get blood from a stone.
Neither is a protection from Microsoft, per se, since Microsoft doesn't care about the good will, and isn't trying to get license fees; it's trying to prohibit the open source revolution altogether. Other patent holders may find their patent implementations in open source to threaten commercial interests, ala. mp3.
The IBM public license does not contain such a provision. In fact, it says the inverse...
Well, I think the Eclipse example is ineffective for two reasons. 1. It doesn't have any antagonists in the commercial software arena; on the other hand Linux, Apache, MySQL, QT and OpenOffice are targets, and 2. It's not GPL; I think it's important to look to examples with the GPL because it's mainstream nature.
Though it is wise to be conscious of licenses like those for Eclipse, my concerns have to do with making software proprietary with exclusive licenses. The provisions of the GPL prevent this.
but one of the reasons is that a proprietary software company often doesn't think it's good business to yell "Hey, all these patents could make me go out of business", since clients to not like to buy software from such companies.
That's very insightful. For the evidentiary reasons, I do believe open source is more vulnerable to targets, but I think that my assertions are too broad, in this light. But they shouldn't be overlooked; so long as Microsoft and other commercial software companies and patent holders feel threatened by or opportunity in open source software, I believe they will find it easier to threaten communal software rather than proprietary. Time and examples may prove that conjecture incorrect.
You seem to be saying that "open source" is synonymous with "no money" and that proprietary software is synonymous with deep pockets. There are plenty of companies, IBM, Sun, Novell, etc., who publish Open Source Software and can pay to license patents. And there are plenty of proprietary companies which do not have the economic means to pay for patent licensing. OSS is not a synonym for "freeware."
It was not my intention to imply that opensource=no money, nor that proprietary software=deep pockets. There are a number of distinctions to be aware of; thanks for pointing out the confusion.
IBM, Sun, Novell aren't just paying for a patent for a specific use; they are paying for a general communal use that will directly compete with the commercial interests of other patent-licensees. The patent holder won't license that for cheap (though they can be compelled to license it).
For example, if IBM licenses a patent for Linux, anyone is entitled to use that implementation in any other software, thanks to the GPL. The GPL reads: "We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all."
Proprietary companies can license for specific uses, with no threat to the patent holder's other commercial interests. This is a much cheaper license, and doesn't require deep pockets, per se.
It is noteworthy that there are compulsory licensing schemes that (in theory, should) prevent abusive monopolistic pricing tactics which would prevent small businesses from licensing the patent.
Most software patents do not require access to the source to determine whether or not they are infringed, and often not even to the application to determine whether or not they infringe. Most software patents monopolise very high level features. You'll almost never find "low level" software patents. The ones that you can find and which are enforced, are generally those that cover standards (e.g. on mp3, gif, jpeg).
The MP3, GIF, and JPEG files are not patented. The methods used to compress data is. It can be hard to detect, unless a violator is using those files in their particular implementation. There is nothing to say that the patented methods would be used in compatible files. Without reverse engineering the code or seeing the source code, it's plausibly deniable unless you have an oracle.
Quicktime/MOV files are not patented, however the Sorensen codec is. You can use the Sorensen codec in any compression, with any type of file. You can also use Quicktime with any type of file, but it only violates the patent when Sorensen is decoded.
I don't think IBM would have any problems getting a proper license for some patents infringed by e.g. Eclipse. So this is generally more a big vs small than open vs closed issue (though definitely not always, e.g. the shareware GraphicConverter was able to keep offering GIF encoding, because the author paid patent license fees to Compuserv).
I am not sure if I made clear the potential scope of this predicament. If IBM licenses a patent for Eclipse, then it must be licensed for all derivative software, otherwise it ceases to be open source (per most definitions, eg. the Debian definition or the FSF definition). However, if it is licensed for open source use, then it can be ripped out and used in any other open source software.
In effect, then, licensing patents for open source software requires having a public interest patent, since it undermines the commerical interests in the patent when it is used in open source software.
There is no lack of buzz around patents. This article garnered opinions from some big names in the patent world, like Free Software Foundation counsel Dan Ravicher, law firms Phillips Fox and Baker & McKenzie.
Dan Ravicher of the FSF made this point: "patents pose less of a threat to open-source software than they do to proprietary software". He also states: "There are no patents that choose only to be infringed by open source. Any patent that imposes a threat to open-source software is going to impose a threat to proprietary software."
Well, the first point doesn't flow logically from the second point. Open source and proprietary software are in two different categories, from an evidientiary and a monetary point of view.
Access to source code As a matter of evidence, violating patents in open source software is evident on its face: you can read the source code. Legible code makes a patent infringement case trivial. Proprietary software may require expensive reverse engineering, to devise how it operates and whether that operation violates the patent. There may be some legal questions regarding your capacity to reverse engineer legally, particularly with oppressive legislation such as the DMCA.
Access to software Also, in this vein, to determine a violation of proprietary software, you must also have access to it. Proprietary software, particularly custom or enterprise software, may not be readily available to examine. Even if the software is available, it may require an onerous license that prohibits reverse engineering. Open source software is, almost by definition, accessible to anyone for examinition. Having a clause to prevent reverse engineering would be contrary to its object.
Licensing capacity The lucid nature of open source software means that to obtain a mandatory license for a patent would be prohibitively expensive for two reasons. First, open source software does not have deep pockets or the capacity for a cross licensing agreement. Second, even if either were available, the nature of open source software would wholly undermine the purpose of the patent: an open source implementation of the patent would be available for free, unrestricted use.
A proprietary software company, on the other hand, has the economic means and an economic incentive to obtain a license or cross license, and would presumably do so only for the benefit of the company, and would not threaten the other economic interests of the patent.
Compulsory Licensing Patent legislation provides for compulsory licensing, I understand, if it is in the public interest. However, even though a proprietary company could enforce this licensing by challenging it at the patent office, currently the cost would be prohibitively expensive to many, if not most, open source software developers. As well, compulsory licensing that undermines the patent, by creating an open source unrestricted implementation, would create contentious arguments about the real public interest. Patents protect the patentor, and as a secondary consideration they may have licensing imposed against the will of the patentor, if it is in the public interest. Their rights would likely trump.
For at least these reasons open source software is in a different situation than proprietary software, and as a result I am not entirely convinced of Mr. Ravichers's assertion, as they are quoted in the linked article.
A plug-and-play Linux computer is a logical step, technically, from Knoppix et al. Economically, it may be in a prime situation for a well priced subscription model.
The barrier to entry of the humble plug and play corporate desktop actually seems to be a consequence of the lack of commercialization of Linux to date. Though the economic incentive exists to break into the enterprise marketplace, it has not trickled down to the small business.
With time, I am sure that a start-up will capitalize on this in a grand way. The technology is there, as evinced by the variety and capabilities of the many distributions. A simplified distribution, reflecting an appropriate commercial incentive, may soon be in a position to go a long way.
Slashdot Mirror
Google: "Debian bittorrent", [I'm feeling lucky]
Downloading Debian CD images with BitTorrent
In a similar vein, how does Apple's .Mac hold up?
I have never used it, and its data storage limitations (250MB??) are ridiculously small for the price ($99/yr?), given free email storage upwards of 1GB. However, I was wondering what others' experiences were?
Cheers
Brought to you by the same people who advocate counterproductive warmongering as foreign policy and at the same time refuse to aid development of health, education, and basic infrastructure in debt laiden countries that can foster terrorist ideals (and incentives, given the insurmountable debt owed to the first world and a corresponding lack of aid).
For those who don't want to read the article (or links), I believe the gist is as follows:
- The rumour for widescreens is substantiated by an internal Asustek memo indicating that Apple is buying wide screen laptops.
- The forthcoming iBook update is at least furthered by the lack of an iBook update in a very long time (for iBook updates). See, e.g. Macrumours Buyers Guide. It's been 274 days since an iBook update, where the average is 158. It's writing on the wall.
- It almost certainly won't have an Intel processor. Apple's plans to move to Intel supposedly start in Q1 2006.
Time will tell, of course.
Both patents and lawyers are utilities and have no motivation of their own. While they may stop innovation, they are no more proactive or caring than a wall placed to move water in a certain direction.
The wall, in this analogy, is placed by someone else. That would almost be the legislators, were it not for the heavy handed corporate lobbying that drives them, who are in turn driven by expectations of greater profit, and fear of lost income, in the absence of their protectionist lobbying. Even that is overly simplistic, given the long history of patents and their perceived positive effects on society, and the prohibitively costly access to judicial representation and remedies by the common person.
Tongue in cheek, patents and lawyers prevent innovation. The cause, and blame, is much more complex, I humbly submit.
Would it be hypocritical to find bittorrent absent of copyright infringement, and then lawyers and patents guilty of stymieing innovation? (Or would that be overly simplistic?)
From a user perspective, how is this better than bittorrent + tv sites?
I don't watch North American TV. But if I did, it'd be with video podcasts.
Does the statement, "We should put to death people who create griffiti." even sound slightly rational?
Clearly, you have never been to Singapore.
When it's being advertised as a hack-challenge, the incentive to disclose is greater, since there is a greater assumption that someone else is going to figure it out:
If you disclose first, you receive praise and recognition. If you discover a hack but only disclose after someone else, you are deprived of this praise and recognition.
If someone honestly believes no-one will figure out their clever hack before the product is released, there might be some incentive to holding onto it, for later malicious exploitation.
The value of each hack is decreased for advertised challenges since there is an avenue of disclosure with reward, so the likelihood of a hack remaining exclusive to people who don't disclose is decreased.
Just food for thought.
It's not about software. It's about culture. It's about the fabric of our lives (and I don't mean cotton).
Ironically, the multi-billion dollar cotton subsidies to US farmers is one of the biggest hitches in completing the Doha development round of the WTO.
For the cost of these subsidies, America could pay the farmers a golden parachute of twice what it costs for them to work, and buy it from the 3rd world at a tenth of the price. Everyone benefits. Except the American farmer's lobbists.
(Note, this isn't just a problem with America; it's just notable that its' cotton in the USA. Other rich countries have their own caveats.)
If only A10 Tank Killer were multi-threaded ...
The clever among us are wondering how a 10 second blast can kill so many things on the planet, when half the planet will be on the far side of the burst (a planet that would presumably absorb a great deal of the radiation). It turns out (From TFA) that the burst theoretically destroys the ozone layer, undermining our protective layer against solar radiation, until the ozone layer replenishes. The blurb is a touch misleading.
Incidentally, wasn't it just shown that black holes don't exist?
From what I vaguely recall, one of the greatest risks of a chimera (aside perhaps from the slippery moral slope), is the risk of a genetic material from diseases that affected their species making a jump to the human species. In essence, diseases that affected that species may be dormant or preserved in those animals, and unleashed, so to speak, in the presence of foreign material such as human organs.
For example, in this case rabbits: a viral pandemic that killed all but the few naturally-immune bunnies may have left remnants of its genetic material in their DNA. All living bunnies are immune, having derived their genetic material from the bunnies that survived the pandemic. No humans however, have that immunity. Crossing the species procures the possibility of a transfer from bunnies to humans.
How plausible this is, I couldn't really say. But I seem to remember it having some merit when juxtaposed with concerns over xenogenic transplants, concerns which seem applicable here also. Though the probability of this happening may be low, the damage may be astronomical since it could concoct a disease wholly unknown to science.
I've remembered things because I've said to myself "I will remember this moment." One of them was when driving a Previa from up the north-east US seaboard, while eating a bag of doritos. Another was as an infant, choosing to drink milk after hearing my mother say that I wouldn't.
:-)
I think the level of consciousness a moment has affects our capacity to (and interest in) remembering them. But this can be a function of pure will.
Mind you, there is no telling how many of these willed memories have been forgotten. None, that I can recall.
I went to Romania, not exactly the pinacle or bastion of freedom and democracy, and on entry was asked simply where I was going, why and for how long I was staying. Nothing else. This country was communist in 1989, and travel restrictions seem less severe that the USA? Maybe this is cause for Americans to pause for some deep reflection on what they were fighting for, and what they really won, at the end of the cold war.
You're not a lawyer, are you?
Yeah, I didn't think so.
You'd think wrong.
Perhaps next time, you might want to post a reason for your doubts. At least then, someone could take the time out to correct your misunderstanding.
Copyright law does not have any language regarding intent that I'm aware of.
... that the person knows or should have known infringes copyright or would infringe copyright (Copyright Act, s. 27)
It is an infringement
Intent is codified in at least some statutes in this language or similar through the phrase "knows or should have known". That snippet is from the Canadian Copyright Act.
However, even absent the explicit statutory requirement of intention, in most civilized constutional legal regimes you cannot be imprisoned for absolute liability offences. In other words, if there is a threat of imprisonment, the prosecutor has to show intention. In the least, there is a defence in due diligence. You can't chuck people in jail for transferring something they didn't realize was copyright. The heavy penalties actually seem to work against the regime of copyright enforcement, in this respect.
Canadians pay a tax on all materials used to store digital data, which licenses them to reproduce copyrighted works.
Part VIII of the Copyright Act is the section you are referring to, and it only covers blank audio media (CD's, tapes, etc.), and similarly only remunerates musical works.
It does not indemnify you from prosecution for broadcasting; it only covers 'private copying', not public distribution. Neither does it cover film or literary works.
It was enacted to remunerate artists for private copying happening with audio tapes, and its arbitrary limitations to audio media and musical works persist. Its indemnification is similarly limited to musical works.
Are BitTorrent users more vulnerable legally (not practically) since they automatically upload? I'd think that makes them distributors, which presumably brings higher penalties than consumption.
That depends on your legislation. In Canada, for example, you only infringe copyright if you intended to infringe it. The high penalties associated with infringement of copyright, ie. criminal sanctions, leads to a high burden on the crown to prosecute.
So if a tech-unsavy person is uploading while downloading as part of the protocol, s/he is likely not intending to infringe copyright in the uploading, and therefore likely not guilty of an infringement.
However, the downloading itself may be an infringement, and by virtue of clicking the link, you have shown intention (though shown, it's not proven; accidental clicking, etc.).
Incidentally, I do not know what would happen if you were downloading a copyrighted movie you already own (fair use/dealing), and you were aware of the uploading. In that case you may be infringing copyright, but at the same time exercising your right to a backup, though to exercise that right through the bittorrent protocol, the only means of acquiring a backup given the DVD copy protection, you must redistribute and inherently infringe portions of the copyright.
it is either just as easy to go from Windows to Linux as it to go from Mac to Linux because I used a common API (like QT) or it just as hard to go from Windows to Linux as it is Mac to Linux because I used a native API.
:) The implication of a Mac and Windows port is that they, for purely economic reasons in the least, have a created common API. Were it purely a Windows game, it is less likely that they would have used a common API. The existence of a common API is cheaper porting.
:)
You have answered your own question.
In the event that they do not have a common API, at least with the Mac port they have identified the areas that are Windows-only and made them Mac compatible. Therefore, having a port already, when contemplating a port to Linux they can estimate the software development required. In other words "this is what we had to do to make it work on a Mac, and we think the following similar things we'll have to do to make it work on Linux". Getting this estimation approved by management could be itself considered half the battle.
Anyone interested in passively promoting development of World of Warcraft on Linux through a petition can have a look at this site. With a Mac port already, they're more than halfway there.
I don't think such a defense would be very plausible in general. And for example, closed source program writers are probably just as much threatened (if not more) than open source authors about the jpeg patents, because the holders are just in it for the money (and not to prevent others from using jpeg compression). See e.g. this message.
...
There are two good points here:
1. Open source has fantastic goodwill, and
2. You can't get blood from a stone.
Neither is a protection from Microsoft, per se, since Microsoft doesn't care about the good will, and isn't trying to get license fees; it's trying to prohibit the open source revolution altogether. Other patent holders may find their patent implementations in open source to threaten commercial interests, ala. mp3.
The IBM public license does not contain such a provision. In fact, it says the inverse
Well, I think the Eclipse example is ineffective for two reasons.
1. It doesn't have any antagonists in the commercial software arena; on the other hand Linux, Apache, MySQL, QT and OpenOffice are targets, and
2. It's not GPL; I think it's important to look to examples with the GPL because it's mainstream nature.
Though it is wise to be conscious of licenses like those for Eclipse, my concerns have to do with making software proprietary with exclusive licenses. The provisions of the GPL prevent this.
but one of the reasons is that a proprietary software company often doesn't think it's good business to yell "Hey, all these patents could make me go out of business", since clients to not like to buy software from such companies.
That's very insightful. For the evidentiary reasons, I do believe open source is more vulnerable to targets, but I think that my assertions are too broad, in this light. But they shouldn't be overlooked; so long as Microsoft and other commercial software companies and patent holders feel threatened by or opportunity in open source software, I believe they will find it easier to threaten communal software rather than proprietary. Time and examples may prove that conjecture incorrect.
You seem to be saying that "open source" is synonymous with "no money" and that proprietary software is synonymous with deep pockets. There are plenty of companies, IBM, Sun, Novell, etc., who publish Open Source Software and can pay to license patents. And there are plenty of proprietary companies which do not have the economic means to pay for patent licensing. OSS is not a synonym for "freeware."
It was not my intention to imply that opensource=no money, nor that proprietary software=deep pockets. There are a number of distinctions to be aware of; thanks for pointing out the confusion.
IBM, Sun, Novell aren't just paying for a patent for a specific use; they are paying for a general communal use that will directly compete with the commercial interests of other patent-licensees. The patent holder won't license that for cheap (though they can be compelled to license it).
For example, if IBM licenses a patent for Linux, anyone is entitled to use that implementation in any other software, thanks to the GPL. The GPL reads: "We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free
program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the
program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any
patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all."
Proprietary companies can license for specific uses, with no threat to the patent holder's other commercial interests. This is a much cheaper license, and doesn't require deep pockets, per se.
It is noteworthy that there are compulsory licensing schemes that (in theory, should) prevent abusive monopolistic pricing tactics which would prevent small businesses from licensing the patent.
I hope that clarifies.
Most software patents do not require access to the source to determine whether or not they are infringed, and often not even to the application to determine whether or not they infringe. Most software patents monopolise very high level features. You'll almost never find "low level" software patents. The ones that you can find and which are enforced, are generally those that cover standards (e.g. on mp3, gif, jpeg).
The MP3, GIF, and JPEG files are not patented. The methods used to compress data is. It can be hard to detect, unless a violator is using those files in their particular implementation. There is nothing to say that the patented methods would be used in compatible files. Without reverse engineering the code or seeing the source code, it's plausibly deniable unless you have an oracle.
Quicktime/MOV files are not patented, however the Sorensen codec is. You can use the Sorensen codec in any compression, with any type of file. You can also use Quicktime with any type of file, but it only violates the patent when Sorensen is decoded.
I don't think IBM would have any problems getting a proper license for some patents infringed by e.g. Eclipse. So this is generally more a big vs small than open vs closed issue (though definitely not always, e.g. the shareware GraphicConverter was able to keep offering GIF encoding, because the author paid patent license fees to Compuserv).
I am not sure if I made clear the potential scope of this predicament. If IBM licenses a patent for Eclipse, then it must be licensed for all derivative software, otherwise it ceases to be open source (per most definitions, eg. the Debian definition or the FSF definition). However, if it is licensed for open source use, then it can be ripped out and used in any other open source software.
In effect, then, licensing patents for open source software requires having a public interest patent, since it undermines the commerical interests in the patent when it is used in open source software.
Of this I am fairly certain. Per my blog, regarding this article.
There is no lack of buzz around patents. This article garnered opinions from some big names in the patent world, like Free Software Foundation counsel Dan Ravicher, law firms Phillips Fox and Baker & McKenzie.
Dan Ravicher of the FSF made this point: "patents pose less of a threat to open-source software than they do to proprietary software". He also states: "There are no patents that choose only to be infringed by open source. Any patent that imposes a threat to open-source software is going to impose a threat to proprietary software."
Well, the first point doesn't flow logically from the second point. Open source and proprietary software are in two different categories, from an evidientiary and a monetary point of view.
Access to source code
As a matter of evidence, violating patents in open source software is evident on its face: you can read the source code. Legible code makes a patent infringement case trivial. Proprietary software may require expensive reverse engineering, to devise how it operates and whether that operation violates the patent. There may be some legal questions regarding your capacity to reverse engineer legally, particularly with oppressive legislation such as the DMCA.
Access to software
Also, in this vein, to determine a violation of proprietary software, you must also have access to it. Proprietary software, particularly custom or enterprise software, may not be readily available to examine. Even if the software is available, it may require an onerous license that prohibits reverse engineering. Open source software is, almost by definition, accessible to anyone for examinition. Having a clause to prevent reverse engineering would be contrary to its object.
Licensing capacity
The lucid nature of open source software means that to obtain a mandatory license for a patent would be prohibitively expensive for two reasons. First, open source software does not have deep pockets or the capacity for a cross licensing agreement. Second, even if either were available, the nature of open source software would wholly undermine the purpose of the patent: an open source implementation of the patent would be available for free, unrestricted use.
A proprietary software company, on the other hand, has the economic means and an economic incentive to obtain a license or cross license, and would presumably do so only for the benefit of the company, and would not threaten the other economic interests of the patent.
Compulsory Licensing
Patent legislation provides for compulsory licensing, I understand, if it is in the public interest. However, even though a proprietary company could enforce this licensing by challenging it at the patent office, currently the cost would be prohibitively expensive to many, if not most, open source software developers. As well, compulsory licensing that undermines the patent, by creating an open source unrestricted implementation, would create contentious arguments about the real public interest. Patents protect the patentor, and as a secondary consideration they may have licensing imposed against the will of the patentor, if it is in the public interest. Their rights would likely trump.
For at least these reasons open source software is in a different situation than proprietary software, and as a result I am not entirely convinced of Mr. Ravichers's assertion, as they are quoted in the linked article.
A plug-and-play Linux computer is a logical step, technically, from Knoppix et al. Economically, it may be in a prime situation for a well priced subscription model.
The barrier to entry of the humble plug and play corporate desktop actually seems to be a consequence of the lack of commercialization of Linux to date. Though the economic incentive exists to break into the enterprise marketplace, it has not trickled down to the small business.
With time, I am sure that a start-up will capitalize on this in a grand way. The technology is there, as evinced by the variety and capabilities of the many distributions. A simplified distribution, reflecting an appropriate commercial incentive, may soon be in a position to go a long way.