Patent Infringement Lawsuits That Involve FOSS (Groklaw)
Posted Aug 11, 2005 19:12 UTC (Thu) by
mmarq (guest, #2332)
Parent article:
Patent Infringement Lawsuits That Involve FOSS (Groklaw)
" In terms of prior art, whether one considers fax machines, classical fax modems, or even the very old mgetty+sendfax package used for doing fax to email and email to fax on GNU/Linux machines for maybe 20 years now, I am rather certain there is a great deal of relevant and readily demonstrable prior art in this area, besides the ridiculous nature of these patents. "
There has been an old long patent busting dffort from EFF...
This lawactions only serve to stop the evolving progress of Open Source in general, a tactic followed by Ma$ter with SCO e now this.
To counter this is, i belive the action should be to *NEVER* stop evolving Asterisk and Hylifax or what ever be implyed in the futur, and counterclaim for loses to the maximum possible penny that those patent trolls might have. That is, the benevolent approach followed with GPL cases, transported here in the style, okay there was prior art, but we are nice guys and forgive you J2, so everybody can go about their business... *could* never apply here to the danger of having a flush of claims like this one that effectivelly can stop commercial and non-commercial Linux.
If only there was a very strong(enough) Desktop presence i'm sure those claims as strategic manouvers would be severely limited in effectiveness, because common users dont wait years for "commercial" courts to shake down trolls and their injust claims, to continue to use the products and even help in their development whenever possible.
Linux approach with "hardware bend over" or "else", with everything tight integrated and no API bounderies what so ever, is a *sitting duck* for claims immensely worst than this one because patents infesting device drivers *ARE NOT* to be considered software patents, since it has long been determined by law, in US, EU and Asia, that every piece of software restrictly needed to make a device function is considered part of that device and the inventions associated with it.
So every defendor of "nothing out of tree" because tight integration helps rapid development is a *guardion*, knowingly or fullishingly, of the startegy that aims to convert the Open Source paradima into a proprietary one, because even if there is an immense pool of patents to use, its obvious that it will tend to be appliable to those devices from intitutions *working* with open source, and in the end the only legal integration of devices drivers in an official tree, will be of those institutions and only for their hardware.
That is a proprietary paradigma from whatever angle you look at it, because it will be controlled tight by proprietary interests.
(
Log in to post comments)