| |||||||||||
Write Free Software, Pay $203,000 to Patent Holder (Right to Create)
The Right To Create site has a
story describing a patent attack on a free software project.
"Ben Jacobsen, a model railroad hobbyist, wrote a bunch of software
to let you connect your computer to your model railroad and control trains
with it. He chose to not only give the software away for free, but to make
the source code available as well, so that the model railroading/hacker
community could improve it and customize it to their liking. And then KAM
Industries, maker of commercial software that serves a similar role, tried
asserting their 'patent rights' over doing just that." The fact
that the JMRI project was
released prior to the patent application appears not to matter to the
patent holder.
Update: a subsequent posting gives more information on the case and asks for help in identifying specific prior art. (Log in to post comments)
How about countersuing? Posted Apr 21, 2006 1:33 UTC (Fri) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] Since the guy being harrassed actually did this "invention" first, it might be interesting to find out if he can claim the patent for his own and then demand $29 for each copy shipped by the harrasser. Didn't the US have "first to invent" at the time the patent was filed? Ordinarily this would be expensive to do, but maybe Eben Moglen's organization could provide help.
How about countersuing? Posted Apr 21, 2006 2:19 UTC (Fri) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] It doesn't appear he did it first - his first release is before the patent application, but well after the official 'date of discovery.'
Regardless, it's an excellent example of how patents stifle innovation. Even if this guy WAS the very first person in the world to conceive of using java to control a model railroad... so what? Why does that give him the right to prohibit anyone else from writing code for that purpose in that language? And how does giving him that monopoly in any way encourage progress in the sciences? Plainly the effect is the opposite.
How about countersuing? Posted Apr 21, 2006 14:51 UTC (Fri) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] Well, the *theory* is that patents encourage the inventor to disclose how the invention works, so that others can improve or build on it. Whn that happens, those people can similarly patent their improvements; if those improvements use the original invention, the result would still require a license of the original patent, as well as any license required by the inventor of the improvement.
The alternative would be that inventors go to excessive lengths to keep their inventions secret, by such means as hiding them inside opaque mechanisms, by licensing them instead of selling them, or by selling their use as a service instead of selling products tham embody the invention.
If medicines, for instance, could not be patented, you might need to go to a licensed clinic to get a shot of some secret substance when you were sick, rather than being able to buy a pill at your local pharmacy. And other companies would not be able to explore improvements on the drug or better ways of making it, because they wouldn't be able to find out what the chemical basis of the drug was or how to make it.
So, yes, patents probably do promote progress in many areas, when compared to the alternative of trade secrets. Whether software is such an area, whether the patent duration is fair, whether the duration should be the same for all kinds of patent, and whether the patent office grants many patents that really should have been rejected as obvious, trivial, or non-innovative are separate issues...
How about countersuing? Posted Apr 21, 2006 16:32 UTC (Fri) by jayorke (guest, #10685) [Link] Patent law is flawed in that it seems to presume that in this increasingly well educated world with a population of 5 or more billion people that a person could invent something that nobody else could invent without stealing the idea. I think someone who actually believes they have invented the otherwise uninventable to be a little arrogant. I fully support copyright law and believe that people that do the work of inventing should be rewarded but I find it ridiculous to think that every thought that comes out of someones mind should need to be run against the patent database to ensure its originality. The flaw in a test of obviousness is that it doesn't properly deal with the question "obvious to who?" What may be obvious to a group of physicists who have performed similar research and have similar skills is quite different from what is obvious to other members of the population. I don't see how it could ever be justified that an inventor who never saw the works of another could owe someone for the idea they thought out in their own head.
How about countersuing? Posted Apr 21, 2006 17:05 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] That's covered: obvious to one skilled in the art.
Alas the lawyers have mangled this definition to the point of uselessness in some countries (to such an extent that patent lawyers and not programmers are taken to be the ones skilled in the art with respect to computing patents), and the patent examiners aren't sufficiently skilled.
(IANAL.)
How about countersuing? Posted Apr 22, 2006 14:00 UTC (Sat) by Kmaurer (guest, #12642) [Link] The key to this whole scenario is self interest. Humanity has to evolve past self interest in order to progress as a species. Only when we can view inovation and progress in light of the greater good will we stand a chance of avoiding extinction. Competition relies on the expertise of one indiviual over another. Cooperation blends the best everyone has to offer. Awareness raising and understanding are the long term organic antidotes to suing eachother. Let's hope we have enough time for them to take hold.
Write Free Software, Pay $203,000 to Patent Holder (Right to Create) Posted Apr 21, 2006 2:47 UTC (Fri) by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989) [Link] What needs to happen is a massive bad publicity campaign, such that KAM Industries enjoys an entirely pyrrhic victory.Do what you want in the court of law; the court of public opinion can be more brutal, and without appeal.
Write Free Software, Pay $203,000 to Patent Holder (Right to Create) Posted Apr 21, 2006 19:31 UTC (Fri) by oloryn (guest, #7408) [Link] E.g.,see the SEA vs PKWare suit. When was the last time you had to deal with a .ARC file?
Write Free Software, Pay $203,000 to Patent Holder (Right to Create) Posted Apr 21, 2006 4:35 UTC (Fri) by Junior_Samples (guest, #26737) [Link] Most of us are familiar with the household wall switch which controls a mains outlet, usually for the purpose of switching a lamp on and off. Of course we could use the switch to control a Christmas tree, or a television, or a radio, or an electric blanket, or a model railroad.How is applying a computer to control something patentable, any more than using a traditional switch? I remember the dawn of the microcomputer era when when the typical hobby computer was a single board hand wired unit, without monitor or keyboard. The computer books and magazines of the era were always publishing variations on using an SBC to control a model railroad. Even academic text books of the day used this application as an example. Computer control of a model railroad is a stunningly obvious application, devoid of any "invention".
WWell, it's less obvious than a light switch... Posted Apr 21, 2006 15:21 UTC (Fri) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] In fairness, the patent is much narrower than "controlling a model railroad" and goes specifically to how the communications and software are organized. Note that the letter they sent to JMRI specifically pointed out a way the JMRI software could be rearchitected to not overlap the patent while still performing the same function.
It's still probably too broad and obvious, but it's not as obvious as a light switch. The Description section of the patent has a reasonably readable overview of what problem it's trying to solve and how it solves it (but it does manage to misspell CORBA as Cobra).
Write Free Software, Pay $203,000 to Patent Holder (Right to Create) Posted Apr 21, 2006 4:50 UTC (Fri) by wilreichert (subscriber, #17680) [Link] Lawyers sound funny when they speak geek.Maybe he should just add a proxy somewhere. Could be useful for tunneling all requests through you model train network firewall. Think of the tragedy that could incur if someone hacked your trains?
his signature so primitive... Posted Apr 21, 2006 6:23 UTC (Fri) by gvy (guest, #11981) [Link] maybe reflecting his nature?
Write Free Software, Pay $203,000 to Patent Holder (Right to Create) Posted Apr 21, 2006 5:41 UTC (Fri) by salvarsan (subscriber, #18257) [Link] Clearly, there is entirely too much prior art.Perhaps the 50 year old TMRC (Tech Model Railroad Club) at MIT could get involved in the rebuttal.
See <http://tmrc.mit.edu/about.html>
sloppy lawyer! Posted Apr 21, 2006 9:17 UTC (Fri) by bastiaan (guest, #5170) [Link] KAM's lawyer looks as sloppy a SCO lawyer trying to depose Intel: he fails to even spell "JMRI" correctly. The first letter from KAM to Jacobsen claims the "JRMI" project infringes on KAMs patents, not the "JMRI" project :-)
Write Free Software, Pay $203,000 to Patent Holder (Right to Create) Posted Apr 21, 2006 15:24 UTC (Fri) by Sombrio (guest, #26942) [Link] In order to justify the invoice, does KAM not have to prove the 7000 users all reside in the United States? The patent is only valid in the US, thus, any users outside of the US can not be included in the invoice.
Write Free Software, Pay $203,000 to Patent Holder (Right to Create) Posted Apr 21, 2006 17:09 UTC (Fri) by wookey (subscriber, #5501) [Link] Apparently an equivalent patent is granted in the UK too. The exact claims of this one do not seem to be avaiable on line but the US one claims:
So it's basically claiming "an 'interface' for translating the commands of two programs into commands which a 'digital command station' for model train control can understand", which is pretty outrageous.
The UK office will no doubt have allowed it because 'controlling trains' is a technical effect, and thus 'not software'. If I hadn't been following this stuff for two years already I'd be astonished at the idiocy of it all.
Huge ramifications. Posted Apr 21, 2006 15:34 UTC (Fri) by Sombrio (guest, #26942) [Link] This case is huge. If KAM wins this case that is the end of open source in America. None of us could take the risk of losing everything we own because we inadvertently infringed a patent when we open sourced something we did. Most of us wouldn't even take the risk of having to fight these kinds of battles. I certainly hope the FSF sees the implications of this case and provides Ben Jacobsen with the professional support he needs to win.
Huge ramifications. Posted Apr 23, 2006 14:16 UTC (Sun) by kleptog (subscriber, #1183) [Link] It's moments like these that I wonder about the following clause in the EPLA (European Patent Litigation Agreement) which goes as follows:
Article 35 Limitations to the effects of the European patent
The rights conferred by a European patent shall not extend to:
This clause has existed in several agreements but it unclear if it exists in an agreement that actually passed. Also, the phrase "non-commercial" is not defined, but the obvious definition would mean open-source is safe by definition, although distributors who collect money would have a problem.
http://www.european-patent-office.org/epo/epla/pdf/agreem...
Is source code covered? Posted Apr 22, 2006 15:33 UTC (Sat) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] I have wondered for years if only actual programs which are usable on computers are covered by patents on the methods they use or if the source code is too. If the source code is covered then why wouldn't discussions over how to implement such a program be covered?
Is source code covered? Posted Apr 23, 2006 20:00 UTC (Sun) by tao (guest, #17563) [Link] In the US you can patent algorithms and business ideas, thus thought patents.In Europe you cannot patent software, *but* to get around this, companies files patents along the lines of:
"A method for listening to input from the user, running on a computer"
with the mention of the computer, they can then claim that it isn't a software patent at all... Hence the name CII (Computer Implemented Inventions).
To paraphrase Shakespeare: A heap of shit by any other name is still a heap of shit.
Write Free Software, Pay $203,000 to Patent Holder (Right to Create) Posted Apr 23, 2006 21:43 UTC (Sun) by erwbgy (subscriber, #4104) [Link] Alan Cox is going to get in trouble :-)
Write Free Software, Pay $203,000 to Patent Holder (Right to Create) Posted Apr 24, 2006 15:45 UTC (Mon) by josh_stern (guest, #4868) [Link] RMS has long advocated free software primarily on the grounds that software which is released with a proprietary license requires unethical and/or rude behavior from its users and treats them disrespectfully. I've never agree with him about these criteria because I believe that people can make their own decisions about whether they want to enter into a non-sharing agreement, sometimes it benefits them, and some software would never have been written in the first place without such agreements. Conversely, I believe that patents, which once granted restrict the freedom and behavior of all citizens without any explicit consent on their part, *are unethical*. At the very best they are a necessary evil (e.g. we would not have this life saving drug without the possibility of patent protection for it) and should only be granted when the benefits to greater society clearly outweight the disadvantages. I believe that much larger percentages of the voting population would agree with us on the ethical point if they actually understood what was going on with patents.
Write Free Software, Pay $203,000 to Patent Holder (Right to Create) Posted Apr 25, 2006 18:15 UTC (Tue) by kirkengaard (subscriber, #15022) [Link] a) secrecy may not require unethical behaviour from the inside or outside, but lack of observation does tend to encourage laxity wrt strong moral decisions inside. The proprietary software effect RMS refers to for the user, however, is a natural result of the intersection of my needs being greater than the licensor's restrictions.
It is amusing to me to note that the only times you really see theft of open-source software are when proprietary-minded companies get involved, thinking nobody can see them. OTOH, proprietary software seems to have a far greater worry-level because they fear their legitimate users. We don't have to fear our legitimate users.
b) patents, like copyrights (in this respect) are grants of exclusivity. Perhaps the capitalist system has moved away from the good this engendered, but they are designed to prevent theft and encourage developers to develop by guaranteeing them control over the outcome of their labors. This presupposes that the inventors being protected have a disadvantage in entering a given field, and attempts to correct this disadvantage. Sadly, it has become inverted such that the disadvantaged entrants to the field are blocked by, rather than enabled by, patents.
Write Free Software, Pay $203,000 to Patent Holder (Right to Create) Posted Apr 24, 2006 16:11 UTC (Mon) by carcassonne (guest, #31569) [Link] So what if I write free software that interfaces with Lego's computerize offerings ? Should I expect a possible lawsuit ?This KAM case should be fought with all the might of the Open Source community. It can set a very dangerous trend. Would it be possible to involve somehow a couple of big guns in there ? Is it possible to interest IBM in this ? OK, could it be just possible to scare these KAM people and optionaly make them loose a good amount of cash ? These KAM blokes even had the nerve to ask for all the e-mails and correspondance from Jacobsen. What do they think they are ?
What do they think they are? Posted Apr 25, 2006 18:20 UTC (Tue) by kirkengaard (subscriber, #15022) [Link] Lawyers seeking a discovery advantage. Collecting evidence that may support their claims.
|
|||||||||||
