Sponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
ArmaggedonArmaggedonPosted May 14, 2007 12:43 UTC (Mon) by Janne (guest, #40891)In reply to: Armaggedon by gjheydon Parent article: Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)
"Any that can't be re-examined the FOSS community will develop around and remove the conflicting code."
When you talk of "conflicting code", you are clearly thinking of copyrights, which could be fixed in that manner. But we are not dealing with copyrights, we are dealing with patents. In simplified terms: Copyright handles the actual code. Patents handle what the code does. Copyright could be circumvented by rewriting the code in to something else, and doing it so that it still basically does the same thing. You can't do that with patents, since the patent covers what the code does, and the re-written code would still be doing the same thing it did before the rewrite.
(Log in to post comments)
Armaggedon Posted May 14, 2007 12:57 UTC (Mon) by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989) [Link] >patent covers what the code doesI thought that patents cover an implementation, whereas the underlying algorithms remain free, as in speech, which also seems to resemble a greased pig in its current un-graspability.
Armaggedon Posted May 14, 2007 16:25 UTC (Mon) by phiggins (subscriber, #5605) [Link] I'm amazed that people have already forgotten the RSA patent problems. RSA is a popular cryptographic algorithm whose patent expired in 2000. Prior to that, it was used in SSL, PGP, IPSec, and various other popular pieces of networked software which were properly licensed by proprietary software vendors, but Free Software users couldn't use them in the USA. There is simply no way to code around RSA support. Many free programs also supported El Gamal and other algorithms, but not having RSA support caused major compatibility problems because most proprietary software didn't support the non-patented algorithms.
MS or any other company could completely kill a project like Samba which needs to interoperate with their software by requiring the protocol to use a patented algorithm (like SSL with RSA). Patents are a serious problem for software in general. 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.
Network protocols are the one area I've seen patents wreak havoc, but I'm pretty sure that they could present serious problems for desktop software, too. What if all new MS Office file formats used encryption or compression that was patented (assuming decryption and decompression are also patented)?
Armaggedon 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.
Armaggedon in a puff of smoke! Posted May 14, 2007 23:09 UTC (Mon) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] "" Worst possible scenario. Free software in the US effectively disappears. Checkmate. ""
hmmm.. no! *Comercial* Free software in the US will be only for the big boys that pay to M$. About all repositorys, say perhaps 90% of all OSS, from all the independent developers will be lodge outside of US... Many developers will go on even if unemployed... M$ thinks they can cut substancial air out of OSS ( how incredible stupid they are!) but the only thing they get is richer out of the extortion, which after all, money and faul play is a banality expected from them anyway.
**For the end user life will go on as usual... its not even check**
Armaggedon scenarios, IANAL Posted May 14, 2007 23:37 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] It is not so easy, I fear. Most people are not rebels, nor can you expect them to be.Patents would make liable not only the distributor, but also the end user. In effect, it would be as illegal to run any libre software without paying Microsoft as it is now to run a bootleg copy of Windows. Mix in a little BSA-like (or RIAA-like, if you want) techniques, to instill the fear of God in businesses and end-users as needed, and voilą! Instant monopoly. It's crazy, I know, but it would be the net result of recent moves by Microsoft. Their executives must be salivating in their fluorescent-lit offices right now. Probably not even them can imagine the situation going so far; a little FUD is all that is needed to keep customers for a few more years. The moment they start the first lawsuit is where IBM, Red Hat et al retaliate.
Posted May 15, 2007 14:47 UTC (Tue) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] "" Patents would make liable not only the distributor, but also the end user. In effect, it would be as illegal to run any libre software without paying Microsoft as it is now to run a bootleg copy of Windows. ""
And how many "user shops" around the world go with illegal windows ? The large majority i'm affraid, specially among the smallest ones in developing countrys. And that is a fellony everywhere. Well most of these patents are only valid in the US... so... no need to be a rebel here.
M$ is after the big money from the big shops and operators, essentially *only* in US.
Those are only the beginning Posted May 15, 2007 14:57 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] True, but think about our poor colleagues in the US. Why do they have to pay a Microsoft tax when the brave open world has worked out its own operating system from the bottom up?Besides, after the US take it for granted that software patents are good, and "violating" them is bad, then you can bet it will take little time to have them reenacted here in Europe. We should help strike evil things down at the roots.
Those are only the beginning Posted May 17, 2007 14:44 UTC (Thu) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] I've supported "no" softwware patents in Europe for almost a decade.
But another thought is that if OSS is so proficient, an organization to build a vast and good portfolio of patents, prior-art, trivialitys... isnt either a bad idea.
OSS can defeat 'them' at their own game.
Armaggedon 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 :)
Armaggedon Posted May 16, 2007 2:58 UTC (Wed) by marduk (subscriber, #3831) [Link] Patents cover ideas. You can patent an idea w/o even having an implementation.
Armaggedon 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.
Armaggedon Posted May 17, 2007 9:20 UTC (Thu) by lysse (subscriber, #3190) [Link] (To clarify - you don't have to have implemented what you describe in your patent, nor does it have to work; but it must be possible for someone else to build what you are claiming from the details you give in your patent.)
|
|||||||||||