|
|
| Red Hat on Patents and Der Spiegel on EU, MS, and Patents |
 |
|
Sunday, August 08 2004 @ 08:39 PM EDT
|
Red Hat's Chairman and CEO Matthew Szulik spoke at LinuxWorld in San Francisco about patents and copyrights and the danger he sees to software, particularly FOSS, if current laws are not fixed, something he pledges his company will work to achieve. If you'd like to hear that part of his speech, and you don't mind using RealPlayer, you can on ZDNet. I wonder if ZDNet will ever consider adding Quicktime Player and Ogg Vorbis for the rest of us, non-Windows users, who are interested in videos about Linux and would enjoy being able to use what we normally use for playing videos? If you want to cover stories about our operating system, would it not make sense to make it available in our format? If you want hits from us, that is.
Der Spiegel has an article too, in German, of course, highlighting the danger that patents pose to Linux and GNU/Linux systems, and positing that Microsoft intends to use patents as a deliberate weapon to try to kill off their competition. They say Linux is to Microsoft what James Bond is to the villains in the movies -- the only thing blocking their world domination. I have a computer translation of some snips from the ariticle, which I tried to make sound more human, but if you can provide a better translation, please do.
The spotlight is on Microsoft now, where it belongs, on the patent issue. And judging from the article in Der Spiegel, the world believes that they plan on using patents as an anticompetitive weapon. Are monopolies allowed to do that? If Microsoft goes forward now, the whole world is watching and understanding what the various moves here and in Europe are all about.
Whether we can prevail over this threat is yet to be seen, but at least they can't any longer pursue such a strategy in the dark, here or in Europe. Have you noticed that Microsoft has yet to speak? I, for one, would like to hear what they say about IBM's pledge not to sue Linux over any of their patents. What does Microsoft say? Will they make a similar pledge? If not, why not? While you are at ZDNet, you might want to listen to Microsoft's representative speak glowingly about SP2, which is delayed but has a firewall that blocks some incoming threats but can't yet block anything outgoing. They are working on it, he says. I find that hilarious. Maybe they need to deploy more of their money on solving security problems instead of filing patents to try to kill Linux. Here are some portions from the article:
**************************************************
Linux is to Microsoft approximately what James
Bond is to the bad guys is in the movies: the only barrier
blocking them from world domination. . . . So Microsoft allegedly pumped many
millions of dollars to a software company named SCO, which plotted a
legal crusade against the open source movement.
The example illustrates drastically the danger
software patents pose. SCO asserts rights to sections of the
Linux system. SCO boss Darl McBride, a pious Mormon from Utah, who
emerges at conferences protected by bodyguards, sued Linux
supporter IBM for three billion dollars in damages. The process has continued
for over one year. . . .
License disputes like these are in America everyday life. That is
because of the large range of software patents: They create
exclusive rights not only for code lines of a program, but for its
methods. . . .
The American model could be adopted in Europe, if the patent
guidelines, as decided by the European Union Council of Ministers,
are accepted. The European patent office anyhow already
recognized several thousand software patents without unique legal
basis. If the European Union accepts their guidelines, then patent
opponents expect a tide of license complaints also in Europe.
The large ones would profit. Microsoft founder Bill Gates announced
already that his company wanted to start a patent offensive and
that it expects to file 3000 new patents in the next twelve months. Gates in
1991 was s against such patents because of their adverse affect on innovation.
**********************
German:
Linux ist für den Konzern aus Redmond ungefähr das, was James Bond für die Bösewichte in den Kinofilmen ist: die einzige Barriere auf dem Weg zur Weltherrschaft. Um diesen Anspruch kämpft der Konzern mit allen Raffinessen. So soll Microsoft viele Millionen Dollar in eine Software-Firma namens SCO hineingepumpt haben, die einen Klage-Kreuzzug gegen die Open-Source-Bewegung angezettelt hat.
Das Beispiel illustriert drastisch, welche Gefahr von Software-Patenten ausgeht. SCO behauptet, Rechte an Teilen des Linux-Systems zu besitzen. SCO-Chef Darl McBride, ein frommer Mormone aus Utah, der auf Konferenzen im Schutz von Leibwächtern auftaucht, hat Linux-Unterstützer IBM auf drei Milliarden Dollar Schadensersatz verklagt. Der Prozess läuft seit über einem Jahr. . . .
Lizenzstreitigkeiten wie diese sind in Amerika längst Alltag. Das liegt an der großen Reichweite von Software-Patenten: Sie räumen einer Firma exklusive Rechte ein nicht nur für Codezeilen eines Programms, sondern für seine Grundidee.
So hat sich die New Yorker Software-Firma E-Data das Herunterladen von Musikdateien aus dem Internet patentieren lassen. In den vergangenen Jahren erstritt sie viele Millionen Dollar an Lizenzgebühren von Betreibern von Internet-Musikläden. . . .
Das amerikanische Modell könnte in Europa Schule machen, wenn die Patentrichtlinie, wie sie der EU-Ministerrat beschlossen hat, tatsächlich in Kraft tritt. Das Europäische Patentamt jedenfalls hat ohne eindeutige Rechtsgrundlage bereits mehrere tausend Software-Patente anerkannt. Wenn die EU ihre Richtlinie absegnet, dann erwarten Patentgegner auch in Europa eine Flut von Lizenzklagen.
Profitieren würden die Großen. Microsoft-Gründer Bill Gates verkündete bereits, seine Firma wolle eine Patentoffensive starten und in den nächsten zwölf Monaten 3000 neue Software-Patente anmelden - dabei hatte Gates 1991 noch selbst gegen solche Patente wegen ihrer Innovationsfeindlichkeit gewettert.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: manys on Sunday, August 08 2004 @ 09:14 PM EDT |
| ... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Corrections - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 08 2004 @ 09:15 PM EDT
- Vogg Orbis -> Ogg Vorbis - Authored by: manys on Sunday, August 08 2004 @ 09:16 PM EDT
- quicktime is just as bad as real! - Authored by: xtifr on Sunday, August 08 2004 @ 10:28 PM EDT
- Corrections - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 08 2004 @ 11:14 PM EDT
- Corrections - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 09 2004 @ 11:41 AM EDT
- Corrections - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 09 2004 @ 12:46 PM EDT
- Corrections - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 09 2004 @ 12:52 PM EDT
- Corrections - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 09 2004 @ 12:56 PM EDT
- Corrections - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 09 2004 @ 12:59 PM EDT
- Corrections - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 09 2004 @ 01:12 PM EDT
- Corrections - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 09 2004 @ 01:44 PM EDT
- Corrections - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 09 2004 @ 05:14 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Tomas on Sunday, August 08 2004 @ 09:28 PM EDT |
| I do have one minor disagreement where I think the article states it's case too
strongly, PJ. It's just a little niggle.
"If Microsoft goes
forward now, the whole world is watching and understanding what the various
moves here and in Europe are all about."
I use my mum as a
'test case' in things like this (she is a computer user with no love at all for
Microsoft, and does not use Microsoft products) and she has NO idea what
it's all about. None.
---
Tom
Engineer (ret.)
"Friends don't let friends use Microsoft." [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: stevem on Sunday, August 08 2004 @ 09:42 PM EDT |
"SCO boss Darl McBride, a pious Mormon from Utah..."
Gotta love it! This is almost pure Yes Minister, I'm thinking of the episode
where they were selecting the next Arch-Bishop. Apparently "godliness"
was/is not a desirable attribute in an archbishop. :-)
That Darl is a Mormon is totally irrelevant IMNSHO to the gist of the article;
and by pre-fixing the "pious" they turn something that would be a
perfectly praiseworthy description into a millstone around his neck.
Charming....
- SteveM
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Journo Speak - Authored by: Weeble on Sunday, August 08 2004 @ 10:26 PM EDT
- Journo Speak - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 08 2004 @ 11:45 PM EDT
- Journo Speak - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 09 2004 @ 03:50 AM EDT
- Journo Speak - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 09 2004 @ 05:01 AM EDT
- Journo Speak - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 09 2004 @ 05:48 AM EDT
- Journo Speak - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 09 2004 @ 07:56 AM EDT
- Journo Speak - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 09 2004 @ 08:19 AM EDT
- Journo Speak - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 09 2004 @ 08:17 PM EDT
- Journo Speak - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 09 2004 @ 12:26 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: gdeinsta on Sunday, August 08 2004 @ 09:43 PM EDT |
| RealPlayer is available for Linux. You can download it
here. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Walter Dnes on Sunday, August 08 2004 @ 10:09 PM EDT |
As a foreigner, my grasp of US caselaw is even more tenuous than that of most
posters here. I notice a bunch of references to United Shoe Machinery Company
on Google. Some references indicate 1922, others 1953. Would there be
multiple cases? The relevant case apparently was about using patents to
maintain a monopoly. Would that case apply to Microsoft, given their approx
90% share of the desktop? Could it be used to further the interests of Open
Source?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: marbux on Sunday, August 08 2004 @ 10:16 PM EDT |
| goes here [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 08 2004 @ 10:34 PM EDT |
| The question of patents and their misuse and misapplication to
inappropriate
fields is one that I feel is supremely important to
consider for society as a
whole.
Like many, some might say, virtually all of those who today
call
ourselves "Americans", my ancestors came here from distant lands. We
all
know that some came here seeking political and religious freedom,
but the
economic freedom and what those came here were fleeing from
needs further
illumination, for in Europe, and what could be referred to
more correctly as
"old" Europe rather than the way it is used today, or
pre-revolutionary (perhaps
early modern) Europe, economic freedom did
not exist.
In this "old" Europe,
lets say you were a tradesmen, like a butcher.
Perhaps you apprenticed
somewhere and are a very good butcher and you
wish to open your own butcher
shop. It did not matter how good you
were, though. Perhaps you were in a
charter town, and the local guild
would choose who would be permitted to be
butchers. Perhaps they decide
they do not like additional competition, and so
they have the power
to deny you the right to open such a business. Or perhaps
you were
under the administrative domain of a local lord, an aristocrat who
represents a heriditary monopoly, and he chooses the same.
My great
grandfather had such an ambition, to better himself and use
his skills and
talent. Not being permitted to do so in his native
land, he came to this
country to open a butcher shop, in NYC, and use
his skills and talents to make
a better life for himself and his family.
Opening a butcher shop may not seem
like such a large ambition today,
but at one time people did not have the right
even to do such basic
things as this. It was here, in America, where people
were given such
freedom, along with others, and people came here for
that.
Today, a few selfish people, such as Mr. Gates, wish to misuse
a
powerful corporation and game the legal and patent system to preserve
a
failing business model. In doing so these selfish people choose to
use
patents and in doing so are creating something like the "old" Europe
my
ancestors fled from. In resorting to patents, they are saying to those
who
wish to produce software that you must beg for the right to do so,
much like my
great grandfather would have had to do if he had stayed in
Crackow, and they
could choose and have the power to decide who can and
cannot write software, for
this is what software patents ultimately do,
they reduce all others to beggers.
Well shame on them.
When I think of the kind of America I believe in and
wish to raise my
children in, I do not think of the shameful kind of America
people like
Mr. Gates would wish to create. A place where a priviledged few
again
choose what others are permitted to do. A place where we have to beg
for
the right to practice our chosen profession. Rather, I think of the
kind of
America my great grandfather believed in. It does not matter so
much that the
reality was a little less perfect even than that belief,
for it should be that
belief which should be our goal to better achieve
today, for to do any less
shames us all.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Mysjkin on Monday, August 09 2004 @ 12:17 AM EDT |
| Linux is to Microsoft approximately what James Bond is to the
bad guys is
in the movies: the only barrier blocking them from
world domination. . . .
Der Spigel seems to be on the cluetrain. Rather than making and
image of the Linux users / hackers / developers as the freaking
hippies
trying to destroy our world, we are those who are
defending it, great!
The example illustrates drastically the danger software patents
pose. SCO asserts rights to sections of the Linux...
But here they fell
off; I didn't believe that patents already are
an issue? They probably are
going to be, so it's godd to be forward
looking, though..
M.
---
When the knowledge is lacking - fiction becomes facts [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 09 2004 @ 12:20 AM EDT |
(actually, I'm sure you do) that M$ wants to control the world's software; that
that is their aim so they don't need to provide relevant products. They are
against, contrary to their claims otherwise, innovation. They simply want to
continue doing business as usual - and work hard to ensure that they can. I
have often said that if Bill Gates spent have as much effort to produce quality
software as he does to extract every possible cent from every computer user,
they would have satisfied customers using a quality product. Anyway, your
comment: "I find that hilarious. Maybe they need to deploy more of their
money on solving security problems instead of filing patents to try to kill
Linux." reminded me that in the Bill Gates era, M$ will not change.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: feysage on Monday, August 09 2004 @ 12:30 AM EDT |
The spotlight is on Microsoft now, where it belongs, on the patent issue.
And judging from the article in Der Spiegel,
the world believes that they plan
on using patents as an anticompetitive weapon. Are monopolies allowed to do
that?
There is an interesting discussion about the limitations of
access to essential services (including patents) that a
monopoly can exert in
this document, "T
he Essential Facilities Doctrine
Under United States Antitrust Law". An
excerpt:
The limitation is justified because the bedrock principle of
antitrust policy is that
consumer welfare is enhanced by vigorous competition.
Preserving competition ensures
that firms will have efficienc y incentives to
lower costs and prices, and to develop
consumer welfare-enhancing
innovations.
Moreover, this policy justification applies not merely in the case
of natural
monopolies, but to intellectual property as well. One commentator has
noted that
preserving competition does not undercut incentives to innovate, but
enhances them:
Allowing a patent holder with monopoly power in
the
patented market to refuse to deal with competitors in
complementary markets
would eliminate competition and
reduce innovation and consumer choice in
complementary
markets; and those markets would become dominated by a
single firm
– the monopolist in the patent market. In the
long run, such expansive
interpretation of the rights of a
patent grant would only diminish, not enhance,
innovation
in the complementary markets.
Marina Lao, Unilateral
Refusals to Sell or License Intellectual Property and the Antitrust
Duty to
Deal, 9 CORNELL J. L. & PUB. POL’Y 193, 218 (1999).
IANAL, but
the gist seems to be that a company, especially a monopoly, cannot withhold
access to "essential facilities" (including intellectual property) where the
primary purpose
for witholding such access is restraint of competition.
However, the discussion characterizes "access" in such
cases as some sort of
reasonable licensing arrangement. I believe that Microsoft has discussed
intentions to establish various proprietary document and communications
standards
(under the usual banner of "innovation") based
on its intellectual
property (including patents)
with the intent to license for "reasonable" fees
such technologies to other companies,
but not to open source (especially GPL
licensed).
Unfortunately, this would seem to fall within the legal precedent,
and I don't see anything in the outcome of the Microsoft anti-trust trial that
would make them afraid to proceed as planned [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: belzecue on Monday, August 09 2004 @ 12:50 AM EDT |
So what exactly did Mr Gates say back in 1991?
"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's
ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a
complete standstill today."
Funny how attitudes change once the bullied becomes the bully. With Europe
enticed into the software-patent fold, Microsoft will achieve their desired
innovation standstill. IE6 case in point.
-----
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill_Gates
http://www.padawan.info/europe/gates_said_patents_are_bad_for_innovation.html
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: webster on Monday, August 09 2004 @ 01:09 AM EDT |
The repeated mention of Groklaw at SCOforum is flattering. It must be on their
minds.
There is no better place to follow SCO v IBM and related litigation both for
breaking news, long term and instant analysis.
As a prime example consider the fact that our fearless leader dug up an old
"Renewed Motion to Compel" filed by Boise (sic!) in the Microsoft
case. You would only expect that of maybe the Nazgul.
Imagine what she could do full time. Improve Groklaw! Click on the donation
icons to the left and send money. She needs help just dealing with email. If
you send enough, we could even make her quit that OSRM job!
---
webster[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jlp on Monday, August 09 2004 @ 01:11 AM EDT |
I have seen a lot of posts on Yahoo and elsewhere concerning
Bill Gates
stating that he opposed software patents, sometime around 1991.
I have
found the following through google (your friend) concerning this
quote.
Bill Gates Challenges And Strategy Memo
From my read he
clearly grasped the potential of software patents and thought
that they
themselves should be persuing the patent idea. It certainly explains
why
microsoft now has such an arsenal of patents.
Worth
reading.
John
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Quote Mining - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 09 2004 @ 07:29 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: BJ on Monday, August 09 2004 @ 01:57 AM EDT |
>Der Spiegel has an article too, in German, of course,
(...)
>I have a computer translation of some snips from the >ariticle, which I
tried to make sound more human
Cutely phrased but, being neither American nor German, nevertheless I have to
take issue with this typical
lazy-Anglo-American remark.
---
__
|Warning:
|Encountered Proprietary Standard and/or Patented Protocol.
|Choose method of payment[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jlar on Monday, August 09 2004 @ 03:42 AM EDT |
"The spotlight is on Microsoft now, where it belongs, on the patent issue.
And judging from the article in Der Spiegel, the world believes that they plan
on using patents as an anticompetitive weapon. Are monopolies allowed to do
that?"
I guess so. Weren't IBM convicted (or maybe they settled) to make their patents
available to competitors at Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory (RAND) terms in
the early 80's? Unfortunately RAND terms are incompatible with Free Software.
It seems clear that Microsoft is choosing a patent strategy where they tax
closed source for patents and shut out Free Software. I guess the taxing of
closed source will have two purposes. The most important is that it gives MS an
alibi for excluding Free Software. The other purpose is of course to profit from
other closed source companies.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tglx on Monday, August 09 2004 @ 04:34 AM EDT |
The translation of the Spiegel article is quite good. No real mistakes made.
For us German/European OSS developers it's really important that the software
patent issue is for the first time attacked by one of the "political
relevant" magazines. Until now most of the discussion happened in IT
related (online) mags and obscure - of course "closed" - expert
commitees.
The broad discussion initiated by Munichs Major Ude (suspending LiMux due to
patent research and risk estimation) brings the software patent problem out of
the IT dust into a broader public.
The pro software patent attitude of the German government which is caused by
lobbying and total ignorance, is now targetted by a magazine whose political
position is usually close to the current government.
The last paragraph of the article refers to a statement of the German Minister
of Justice Mrs. Zypries which she made after the European Council of Ministers
decision in favor of software patents. She stated (rough translation):
"We hope that software patents will reduce the unemployment rate in
Germany".
This statement clearly shows the ignorance of the responsible politicians.
Bradley Kuhns ( FSF) statement in the last paragraph of the Spiegel article is
revealing the truth:
"Software patents in Europe will have the effect that the big european IT
budgets will increase the profit of US corporate groups. This will provide new
jobs but certainly in Redmond rather than in Munich."
tglx
PS: Thanks to PJ and all groklawers for all the efforts.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 09 2004 @ 05:45 AM EDT |
From http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/rants/microsoft/IhateMS_2.html
This interesting piece of text:
"What it boils down to is that the application may add portions of itself
to the operating system. (This is one of the reasons why Windows needs to be
rebooted after an application has been installed or changed.) That means that
the installation procedure introduces third-party code (read: uncertified code)
to the operating system and to other applications that load the affected DLLs.
Furthermore, because there is no real distinction between system level code and
user level code, the code in DLLs that has been provided by application
programmers or the user may run at system level, i.e. unprotected."
If this is true for WinXP (which it seems it is) and for Longhorn, then if there
are patent violations in the third party-code, they will -become part of- the
main OS as well. So with this in mind, *how* can M$ guarantee there are/will be
no patent violations in Windoze?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: yellowsnow314159 on Monday, August 09 2004 @ 05:49 AM EDT |
It might be possible for companies like SCO and M$ to slow down their
downfall by FOSS by playing a broken patent system. Big companies might even
use manipulation of court juries in such ways as illustrated by the motion
picture "Runaway Jury". They for sure have the money to do so. Than again, they
can only prevail on in the short run.
As I have learned by reading a
web site (Software authors have
rights) referenced in a post a few days ago here on groklaw, it seems clear
to me that patenting software is prohibited by international law under the Berne
Convention and the WIPO treaty. Although it's not very likely to see companies
like IBM defending them self by asserting that software patents are illegal
according to international law, if not only because they own a lot of patents,
any company or organization that doesn't rely on patents should be able to bring
down the patent system. The only thing is that it takes time to get such issues
in from of a supreme court.
The fact(?) that that software patents are
illegal under international law doesn't mean the EU won't vote for the
introduction of software patents. Good relations with corporate business have
proven to be necessary in politics. The US itself is quite an example for
ignoring international laws in favor of economics. A lot of big companies are
learning that they aren't able to survive on a competitive basis with smaller
companies running on new business models. For that reason methods of
monopolizing their markets with the use of software patents are very welcome to
them. They won't care that such a system is illegal under international law. As
long as politicians approve it, why should they. That's why to use all their
influence in persuading politicians to adopt software patents. For this reason
it's paramount that people within the FOSS movement with political influence
should make their representatives aware that software patents are actually
illegal. As soon as politicians are aware of this, only the media have to pick
up on the story before this politicians have a lot of explaining to do when they
support software patents.
Today we are facing the power strugle of big
corporate businesses, using a dying business model, and their means of
influencing politics and even law in an effort to survive. Their power will
nevertheless decline over time. There is no president in history where misuse of
power wasn't eventually overthrown by the will of humanity to innovate and
progress. FOSS is a typical example of such a progression. If it wasn't for
software companies using dubious tactics to control their markets, FOSS might
not even exist. It's existence is a direct consequence of such companies. If
countries are to prevent their own bankruptcy they have to accept FOSS rather
sooner than later and stop amoral corporate criminals from using
inti-competative tactics. A better future is coming and nothing will stop
it.
Greetings from Holland.
First they ignore you, then they
laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. --Gandhi [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 09 2004 @ 06:44 AM EDT |
Team, I have 2 questions for you...
Question 1: How Do We Define
"Non-Obvious"?
Apparently, in order for a Patent to be granted, the
discovery has to be 'Non-Obvious' to another specialist working in the field of
the patent itself.
This strikes me as rather interesting. For example,
didn't Microsoft just get a patent that related to the use of buttons on a
mouse? Why do you suppose computer mice have buttons on them, then?
So
do the US Patent Office bother to consult in the Industry to determine whether a
Patent is non-obvious, or do they assume it is and work on the idea that anyone
is free to challenge if they wish to do so?
Question 2: What Can We
Do About Prior Art>
If, as has been suggested, Prior Art is a good
way to defeat a patent, then perhaps we should take the time and trouble to
record every single good idea we have and publish it somewhere [OSDL, a Goklaw
Spin-Off, etc, etc] as a "stake in the ground" to say, "We had that idea
first!"
The thing that really worries me about this use of patents is
simply the fact that, for all we know, MS and other proprietary vendors could
easily be guilty of the crimes that SCO currently accuse IBM: verbatim copying
of lines of code. Thing is, the FOSS community would never know if MS or Sun did
this, purely because there is no ready access to their source code. So maybe one
way to counter this uneven playing field is to register every single idea, no
matter how trivial it seems, along with code snippets or example
uses.
Maybe someone could offer a better alternative. Either way, what
I'm suggesting here is that we all take a good, hard look at the definitions and
remits of a patent and make surea that we all understand the scope and
limitations that patents have...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 09 2004 @ 08:32 AM EDT |
And Darl is James Bond against the world domination of FOSS. The character
seems to be used anywhere. Wouldn't be surprised if bin Laden uses it as well
:-))
cb[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mhoyes on Monday, August 09 2004 @ 09:41 AM EDT |
I was just thinking. What about turning it all around so you get M$ and others
like them fighting against the patent system.
The way I think it could work is for the F/OSS people to start patenting their
ideas, then allowing the licensing of those ideas, but the license requiring the
use of the GPL, not gigantic bundles of money. That way, if M$ or others want
to use the same technology, they would have to abide by the GPL. They can
choose to do that, or choose to fight the "abuse" of the
"broken" patent system. Be interesting to see them do another about
face.
Any thoughts?
meh[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 09 2004 @ 11:07 AM EDT |
Everyone knows, or should know, that the patent problem is not linux itself; nor
is linux alone in the 'threat'. If Microsoft is going to use its patents, it is
claer it will use them to end freeware/shareware for MSWindows as well.
Freeware, shareware not opensource always, but are offered at no and low cost.
This software developed using Microsoft tools & libraries, however, these
free/share -wares by their independent developer's ideas, too, do cross into
Microsoft's patents in Microsoft's non-free/share products & utils. Just
because you use Microsoft's tools, does not mean you are safe from Microsoft
when developing freeware or shareware.
Example: If I developed a small 'Word' like program that I was able to with the
technology in the Microsoft libraries, do the same features as Microsoft's Word;
it is likely I have crossed into a few of Microsoft's patents for MS-Word that
Microsoft will come after me for, knowing Iam offering the program as
free/shareware. All of this talk that somehow only opensource has this threat on
its head is just no true.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Glen on Monday, August 09 2004 @ 01:25 PM EDT |
Sadly the politicians don't understand the problem.
I have to say bring it on. Let's get a Microsoft vs Redhat or something lawsuit
going on a multinational basis so this thing can be brought into the open and to
a head. That is the only way it will be resolved. When Microsoft starts sending
these foreign governments patent fee bills for Linux then they will get a clue.
With any luck there will be a stiff reaction (for instance expelling Microsoft
and its patents from that country). Once Europe refuses to accept that broken
patent system others will follow step and the effort in the USA will move
forward past the greedy patent attorneys.
Frankly, I suspect that is what is going to have to happen with the RIAA/MPAA vs
fair use.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 09 2004 @ 01:39 PM EDT |
Probably needs a couple of good scrubs from an editor.
Run Across the Minefield
The independant operating system Linux is developing itself into a real threat
to windows. But now the EU-Pariliament comes to the aid of the Microsoft
Corporation.
In a bold act, the princess escapes from the chokehold of the count of darkness.
She does not give in to his threats or listen to his begging. She couragously
walks the path to freedom.
But then the feat of the weapons of her opponent germinates in her - and she
contemplates a ruse. The princess acts as if she were admitting defeat.
Secretly, howerver, she continues to prepare for her flight.
This parable describes the adventure in which the city of Munich currently
attempts to escape from the fangs of the super powerful software company
Microsoft.
The city wanted to remove the Microsoft OS Windows and all other running
programs on 14,000 computers and install the multifaceted operating system linux
instead. No fish this big has ever switched from the Microsoft camp into the
Linux world. Microsoft attempts to stop this loss of status, but neither
radical discounts nor a visit from Microsoft Chief Steve at Mayor Christian Ude
(SPD)[1] could immediately divert the city from it's plans.
This fight is tensely followed by companies and governments worldwide becuase
many hope of a better future from linux. Differing from Microsoft products, the
Linux source code is open to all ("open source"). Every user may
copy, alter, improve, distrinbute or expand the software for his needs to his
desire. Linux is not owned by anyone, is considered stable and secure, and is
the fruit of the wild cooperation of thousands of anonymous programmers.
However, last week Munich made a pull-back: Until further notice the linux
program is on ice - because of allegedly incalculable risks. However, they still
holds fast to Linux plans.
[This paragraph was tricky to translate. "Pull-back" is probably not
an appropriate translation, but I'm not sure that there is one. The last
sentence uses 'man' which is an impersonal pronoun - esentially instead of
'they' the last sentence might be more accurately translated with 'one'.]
With this, Munic is protesting the threatened EU-guideline regarding software
patents. If [this guideline] were enacted, it is feared, there could be demands
on the city of Munich regarding up to fifty patents. Money-cutters could bury
the city in lawsuits and even cripple the cities computers.
[I expect that geldschneider is a nound that describes fiscally motivated
litigators.]
There are, in fact, risks. At the specialized Linuxworld conference in San
France, Open Source Risk Management (OSRM) announced last week that it even
found 283 patents in the USA that could be fielded against Linux. Many of these
patents are controlle by companies that are Linux friendly, among them IBM, but
27 are owned by Microsoft.
Nevertheless OSRM is also selling a solution to the problem: It's offering
Linux users insurance against demands from patent lawsuits.
In San Francisco it was simultaneously clear how stron the backing for the open
source movement has become. Formerly, Linux, developed in 1991 by Linus
Torvalds, a finish student, was a fringe hoppy of computer freaks. Now it's a
buisness of 25 Billion dollars annually. IBM, Oracle or Intel support Linux
with hardware or software services. At Linuxworld they put up booths; Microsoft
was nowhere to be found.
The program with the happy penguin logo is running worldwide on the servers of
many companies, but also more and more on private desktop computers.
Hewlett-Packard, to hue and cry, introduced a laptop on which linux is installed
instead of Windows. Because there is no Microsoft involvement, the computer is
$50 less expensive.
For the company from Redmond, Linux is approximately that what Bond is for the
Villains in the fims: the only barrier on the route to wold domination. The
company is fighting about this issue with all sophistication. So, supposedly,
Microsoft pumped many millions of dollars into a software firm named SCO, that
plotted a litigation campaign against Linux.
The example ilustrates the dangers from software patents clearly. SCO claims
that it owns rights to parts of the Linux system. SCO chief Darl McBride, a
devout Mormon from Utah, who appears at conferences in the protection of
bodyguards has filed a thee billion dollar complaint against IBM. The trial has
been running for a year.
For every server that runs Linux McBride wants a $699 licence fee. If he
suceeded, Linux would be finished. McBride has threatened more than 1500
companes, although the foundations for SCO's claims are considered extremely
questionable. Meanwhile, in a complaint against DaimlerChrysler, the "most
hated tech company" (Buisness Week) has recenly failed - a hopefull sign
for the linux users.
License disputes like these have been commonplace in the Americ for a while.
That's because of the extensive rights granted by software patents: They grant
a firm exclusive rights to the ideas of a program, not just the source code.
So, the New York firm E-Data has patented the downloading of music files from
the internet. In past years it has fought about many millions of dollars of
license fees from the owners of internet music stores.
In a world full of sofware patents, no programmer can know if he is infringing
on others' patents with his own code. He's not even protected from litigation
if he's written every line himself. Linux activist Richard Stallman complains
that programming is like "steppign onto a minefield".
The american model could open a school in Europe, if the patent guideline, in
the form that the EU parliament has it, actually goes into force. The European
patent office has , without any clear legal foundation, already recognized many
thousand software patetns. If the EU enacts this guideline, then [software]
patent opponents expect there will also be a flood of license complaints in
Europe.
Gains would go to the large [companies]. Microsoft foundser Bill Gates has
already announced that his company wants to initate a patent attack, and submit
3000 new software patents in the next 12 months - although Gates himself has
opined against this type of patent as recently as 1991 because of it's
antagonism towards innovation.
Because of that, Bradley Kuhn from the Free Software Foundation urgently
appealed to the Eurpeans in San Francisco against Software Patents: "They
only have the result, that the large IT budgets wander across the pond into the
pockets of large IT firms." That creates jobs, but in Redmond - not in
Munich[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: AllParadox on Monday, August 09 2004 @ 02:24 PM EDT |
I know this will sound wildly inconsistent, but please bear with me.
A patent is a monopoly. It is, in particular, a negative monopoly. It is not a
grant of a right to use. It is a grant of a right to prevent others from using.
That monopoly does not extend to a whole market, however. IIRC, sometime before
WW II, the RCA company gained a monopoly control of the radio market through a
series of interlocking patents. In a subsequent lawsuit, the court found that
the RCA patents were irrelevant. RCA was not allowed to use them to monopolize
the radio market.
Microsoft has already been found to be a monopoly. There is now a target
branded on the forehead of Bill Gates.
Excessive, or unreasonable, use of patents by Microsoft may very well get the
company broken up this time. Unfortunately, given the lax performance of the
USPTO, none of the Microsoft patents may survive serious scrutiny.
For Microsoft to attack Linux through patents is very akin to juggling blasting
caps. They risk that the strategy will blow up in their faces.
---
All is paradox: I no longer practice law, so this is just another layman's
opinion. For a Real Legal Opinion, buy one from a licensed Attorney[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 09 2004 @ 03:40 PM EDT |
| I know IBM has... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
