Armaggedon

Posted May 14, 2007 22:43 UTC (Mon) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]

"" Microsoft full out attack is that Microsoft still feels the desktop market is safe from Linux AND the Linux friends (Novell, IBM, Nokia, etc etc) together probably have more patents then Microsoft does. ""

Their isnt an attack yet, its only a shake down... but MS intention can only mean *full spectrum dominance*, they'll try to cut some deals advantageous to them with Novell, IBM, Nokia, etc etc... on the account of this treath. Users interests and small developers are out !

"" It really depends on how valuable Linux and OSS is to these other large patent holders. Are they willing to stick their own necks out to protect Free software? ""

Dont count too much on that. If the heat gets too intense they will settle with MS. OSS best defence rely on independent organizations like EFF, and the ability to invalidate patents and counter-attack wherever possible.

Posted May 14, 2007 17:12 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

I just wonder if Microsoft could be slapped for monopolistic behavior by using their patents in such a way. I just don't know how these areas of law interact.

I would think that Microsoft would just offer "reasonable" patent licensing terms. Even if these conditions would kill free software, Microsoft could then argue that they are not being monopolistic because all competitors can license their patents. (Or, to be precise, that they are not using their existing monopoly as an unfair advantage.)

Worst possible scenario. Free software in the US effectively disappears. Checkmate.

Posted May 15, 2007 19:38 UTC (Tue) by dark (subscriber, #8483) [Link]

Fortunately, I think that era is now ending. The tug-of-war between ODF and Microsoft's XML format will be the last great decision between patented and unpatented protocols, and in the future a protocol that excludes free software will simply not be able to dominate the marketplace.

I remember when RSA and - particularly - RC5 were inserted into security protocols almost without thought, often as the only must-support option. These days, any such move would be met with an immediate outcry, and a real justification would have to be given for excluding free software implementations. Linux is pervasive enough that every standards body will have at least one user :)

Posted May 17, 2007 9:05 UTC (Thu) by lysse (subscriber, #3190) [Link]

Actually, that was specifically not supposed to be the case*. Patents were designed to cover implementations - an idea simply could not be patented, only a machine which implemented that idea. A patenter could only patent his particular implementation of a mousetrap; he could never patent the simple idea of a device for trapping mice, nor only a fragment of a device - and that would remain true regardless of whether or not anyone had thought of a device for catching mice before. Likewise, what would be judged infringing is the reuse of that implementation in any context (not just the rodent-trapping domain), not the use of a different design of device to accomplish the same end.

The rot set in when it was successfully argued that a general purpose machine plus a set of parameters (a program) could be a special purpose machine, and thus patentable; somehow over the years, the combination part has been forgotten, and the parameters themselves became patentable - and by extension, the high-level description of an algorithm which is converted into those parameters became patentable too. And therein lies the flaw* - source code cannot be directly executed, and is therefore not "a set of parameters" for a general purpose machine in any meaningful sense. It only becomes one when converted to a directly-executable binary representation. The "machine" in question is "cited computer + binary" (or, at a stretch, "computer + interpreter + script"); substitute a different computer and you need a completely different set of configuration parameters - ie. you've created a completely different machine. By allowing a system of rules that can be converted in a vast number of ways into a set of parameters, patents on software have become extended to cover precisely the "device for catching mice" idea that remains verboten in patents on physical devices.

What would it mean were patents restricted to a particular combination of hardware and object code? Well* - for one thing, source code is restored to "description of algorithm" status, which is generally a Good Thing! For another, it would mean that a separate patent would have to be obtained for each implementation on every kind of processor architecture, virtual machine, interpreter... which would render it trivially circumventable (in the worst case, just write a new VM and publish the two parts separately) and not impede progress in the art in the way that patents do today. And finally, since the particular implementation of object code is by and large determined by the particular implementation of a compiler, it's possible that simply recompiling source code with a different C compiler would be sufficient to be judged non-infringing - but that would almost certainly have to be legally ruled on.

* IANAL, this isn't legal advice, "To Serve Man" is a cookbook. In particular, I would love to hear from some real lawyers about whether this approach might be worth pursuing, whether it's already been shot down, etc.