Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
Why Free/Open Source Software Might Have Less to Fear than Non-Free Software (Groklaw)
Dan Ravicher, the guy who came up with the list of patents which might threaten the Linux kernel, has put up an article on Groklaw explaining why patents are much more of a threat to proprietary software than to free software. "Therefore, a permanent injunction is the only truly threatening remedy available for a patent holder bringing a patent infringement suit against Free Software. However, knowing that patents cannot cover functionality, and can only cover certain structure that accomplishes functionality, it is highly likely that before a patent infringement case is tried and appealed, the Free Software at issue can be designed around the asserted patent. Further, it is also highly likely that the Free Software community, a very participatory and technically sophisticated group, will be quite capable at finding prior art to challenge the patent's validity."
(Log in to post comments)
Why Free/Open Source Software Might Have Less to Fear than Non-Free Software (Groklaw) Posted Sep 1, 2004 15:23 UTC (Wed) by pontus (subscriber, #3701) [Link] "knowing that patents cannot cover functionality"... if that's true, then I'm pleasantly surprised. It certainly is not the impression I have so far of how software patents work in practice.
Functionality and structure Posted Sep 1, 2004 16:02 UTC (Wed) by hazelsct (guest, #3659) [Link] IANAL, but I think what's meant is e.g. one cannot patent the trapping of a mouse, but can patent a structure which can be used to trap a mouse. So if a mousetrap in the kernel is patented, we just need to substitute a different one which is not, but it can still catch mice.
But based on this reasoning, a lot of recent patents such as streaming media should be invalid...
Functionality and structure Posted Sep 1, 2004 17:33 UTC (Wed) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] Business-method patents seem to cover functionality: for example, Priceline patenting the idea of running reverse auctions on the Internet.
Functionality and structure Posted Sep 1, 2004 22:25 UTC (Wed) by mcisely (subscriber, #2860) [Link] And this is a big part of the reason why software patents (and for that matter business method patents) are such a problem. With a physical invention there is a physical distinction between an idea and its implementation. One patents the implementation not the idea. But in the realm of software the implementation is essentially just a mathematical description of the idea and thus they are the same. And this is how we end up patenting ideas.
So one might ask, why shouldn't a patent just apply to the software implementation itself in code. Well gee, isn't that what a copyright is supposed to do? Again we're back to the realization of just how broken software patents are.
-Mike
Why Free/Open Source Software Might Have Less to Fear than Non-Free Software (Groklaw) Posted Sep 1, 2004 16:12 UTC (Wed) by AJWM (guest, #15888) [Link] My understanding of it (IANAL, but I've been observing the patent system for a couple of decades) is that the ultimate functionality may not be patentable per se, but that that can be a pretty abstract concept, and the various "methods and apparatus" to achieve said function can (but by no means must) exclude alternate implementations.
For example, the LZW patent, strictly speaking, just covered a compression algorithm -- and there were and are plenty of other compression algorithms. However, because of the specification of GIF files, none of those other algorithms would help you in creating a non-infringing GIF file creator (although there were a couple that allowed for a non-infringing GIF file reader).
Of course, the GIF example also illustrates the original author's main point: the free software community quickly came up with workarounds to the GIF/LZW problem (e.g. PNG). Thus, the ultimate functionality -- compressed image files -- wasn't patentable (even if GIF had been the first and there wasn't a ton of prior art), but the specific details in this case were.
This could still ultimately be a problem for FOSS -- for example trying to come up with a non-infringing way to read/write some Microsoft patented document format -- but it's a minor problem rather than a major one. We'll still be able to read and write other document formats. (And eventually the patent will expire, and the format will have to be fully documented to be patentable -- if a patent doesn't adequately "teach" the subject of the patent, it can be thrown out.)
Why Free/Open Source Software Might Have Less to Fear than Non-Free Software (Groklaw) Posted Sep 3, 2004 14:36 UTC (Fri) by kreutzm (guest, #4700) [Link] Your argument is flawed.
a)Assume GIF reading(!) had been patented. Surfing the net with Free Software would have been difficult ...
b)You know that patents expire some 18 years after application? So we could now read Word 4 files, or something like that. Great.
c)Did you ever try to read a *software* patent? E.g. the progress bar is patented, but there is not a mathematical formula or source code in the patent application, but a lengthy, very hard to read description. I don't know if you could write a word importer from reading the patent application.
There is a real danger of people thinking, that only some minor inconveniences are occuring from Software Patents which can be worked around. I think, some companies just wait for the european union to decide on software patents to start crushing on Free Software. But hopefully I am wrong.
Why Free/Open Source Software Might Have Less to Fear than Non-Free Software (Groklaw) Posted Sep 1, 2004 17:42 UTC (Wed) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] I think that the author is missing a few things. Closed source means that patent violations are more difficult to find; legal terms that prohibit reverse engineering also pose a barrier. This means that proprietary software developers (PSDs) can in many cases infringe patents with little to no risk of being found out (that is, assuming that the developers knew about the patents in the first place, which they don't). Free software is transparent software; patent violations will be much easier to find. Secondly, the owner of a shaky patent can demand a small fee from a PSD, too little to be worth going to court to fight. The PSD can just pay the nuisance money. The free software developer cannot agree to pay a cent. The motivation for bringing a patent infringement action against a free software developers is not going to be to extract money from that developer; there won't be much in most cases. Rather, it will be to eliminate competition, forcing people to buy the proprietary product that implements the patented functionality. In some cases, it will be possible to code around the patent, but in other cases (for example, where compatibility with a proprietary format is required), this might not be possible.
Why Free/Open Source Software Might Have Less to Fear than Non-Free Software (Groklaw) Posted Sep 1, 2004 18:03 UTC (Wed) by QuisUtDeus (guest, #14854) [Link] If the patented algorithm is needed to interface with something else, take steps to make it clear why that interface doesn't exist in the free software, and let people with a concern over this choose an alternative.
Why Free/Open Source Software Might Have Less to Fear than Non-Free Software (Groklaw) Posted Sep 1, 2004 20:07 UTC (Wed) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] Free software has only been able to do as well as it has because it has cloned Microsoft interfaces, in tools such as Samba and OpenOffice, allowing it to invade a Microsoft-dominated world.
Why Free/Open Source Software Might Have Less to Fear than Non-Free Software (Groklaw) Posted Sep 1, 2004 20:30 UTC (Wed) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] Well, yes, if you think applications. But we wouldn't be reading this if Tim Berners-Lee had patented that funny language. Not that it is Free Software, of course, but it is the idea that counts. The networking world is the realm of open standards, thank goodness.
Why Free/Open Source Software Might Have Less to Fear than Non-Free Software (Groklaw) Posted Sep 2, 2004 4:18 UTC (Thu) by verzonnen (guest, #9406) [Link] I thought open office came from staroffice. And I am sure that a open source version of NFS would have been a viable alternative amongst others.
However I do agree that software patents are stupid, but I think we should just ignore them. Even if I wanted to keep up with them it imposible by the immense volume them. As long as open source continues to be disorganized (I find it's actualy more organized than most companies I have worked for) it's going to be very dificult for companies and lawers to make a buck out of suing over free software and very difficult for politicians to sell to the constituents why free software should be subject to this (stupid) patent law.
And personaly I do not care if companies want to use linux or not! Sure it's better in a lot of cases than M$, but why would you want to push any product over another, that would just diminish a developer to a sales person.
Why Free/Open Source Software Might Have Less to Fear than Non-Free Software (Groklaw) Posted Sep 1, 2004 21:53 UTC (Wed) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link] If the patented algorithm is needed to interface with something else, take steps to make it clear why that interface doesn't exist in the free software, and let people with a concern over this choose an alternative.OK, that might work within a technical community, but ordinary users prefer to pay for(and agree with) any license, that a software provider, which develops the application that the ordinary users are used to, feds them. Computers are nowadays a commodity and at the hard of almost any paperwork or business activity. That's why I guess, that most of the money, that moves around the IT industry, comes from the ordinary users, not IT-specialists/programmers.
Why Free/Open Source Software Might Have Less to Fear than Non-Free Software (Groklaw) Posted Sep 2, 2004 6:29 UTC (Thu) by petegn (guest, #847) [Link] >ordinary users prefer to pay for(and agree with) any license, that a >software provider,
I think not how many copies of windBloZe are there around that are copied from the original disk and played with ie no key almost as many if not MORE than paid for versions .
People like M$ Corp use software patents as damadge control to try and limit the Free/Open world but they are unable to and probably never will , there are rumours circulating that old M$ Corp is not doing quite as well as they make out ..
pete .
Why Free/Open Source Software Might Have Less to Fear than Non-Free Software (Groklaw) Posted Sep 2, 2004 13:55 UTC (Thu) by cpm (guest, #3554) [Link] I don't understand this whole mess, I cannot challenge a patent.Simply put, if someone has the money to apply for a patent then they have enough money to defend against anything I could say, as the way this is all structured, I cannot afford to say anything.
The way patents are granted these says, an application is
Patent mess Posted Sep 3, 2004 1:40 UTC (Fri) by bignose (subscriber, #40) [Link] > I don't understand this whole mess
Judging by the rest of your posting, it seems you understand the patent mess all too well.
The system is broken by design. Only a re-design can fix it. Only your legislative body can re-design it. Apply pressure at that point until pain eases. Take two XOR and call me in the morning.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/autofile/www/chapter2_105.html
can't afford to say anything Posted Sep 3, 2004 17:19 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] I believe your criticism is far more general than the patent system. You're pointing out a weakness in the entire legal system used in most of the world -- it costs money to put up an argument (whether it be a defense or a prosecution). So some people who are right lose the argument anyway because they can't afford to prove it. Some say most of the world is a little better than the US in this regard, because there, at least if you ultimately prove you're right, the guy who's wrong pays the cost of your argument. In the US, you usually pay for your own argument even if you are proven right and even if it wasn't your idea to have an argument to begin with.
|
|||||||||||||