Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||
The patent nuclear weapon (ZDNet)
Here's a ZDNet column on IBM's use of software patents against SCO.
"IBM is certainly justified in responding to SCO’s challenge, given the threat that SCO poses to IBM’s Unix business as well as the open source product upon which IBM is building its future. However, the fact that IBM is fully justified in defending itself doesn’t change the fact that software developers should feel a bit queasy about the tactics it has chosen to use."
(Log in to post comments)
The patent nuclear weapon (ZDNet) Posted Aug 25, 2003 14:48 UTC (Mon) by error27 (subscriber, #8346) [Link] It's a tough call. On the one hand SCO deserves to be crushed, but on the other hand software patents are bad.According to a New York Times article SCO critized Linus for ignoring software patents. They said that there should be a process for verifying that software doesn't infringe on patents before it is included. Hopefully it won't be too hard to show that SCO knew about the patents and was willfully infringing on them. (SCO of course only owns one patent themselves)
The patent nuclear weapon (ZDNet) Posted Aug 25, 2003 15:41 UTC (Mon) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] It's easy to talk about SCO in this way, but remember, before SCO became a thug-controlled company, people in the Linux business weren't litigating over patents. Why would the kinder management of earlier incarnations of that company be concerned about IBM and patent infringement?The business about Linus doesn't make sense either. He explicitly said that some of the enterprise features in Linux were being held up until he got clearance to use patented technology.
The patent nuclear weapon (ZDNet) Posted Aug 25, 2003 16:29 UTC (Mon) by eeeg (guest, #14437) [Link] >The business about Linus doesn't make sense either. He explicitly said >that some of the enterprise features in Linux were being held up until he >got clearance to use patented technology.I remember from one of the SCO articles back awhile they had a problem with one of Linus' replies (http://lwn.net/Articles/7636/): On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote: Actually, we can, and I will. I do not look up any patents on _principle_, because (a) it's a horrible The fact is, technical people are better off not looking at patents. If
The patent nuclear weapon (ZDNet) Posted Aug 25, 2003 18:31 UTC (Mon) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] Knowing patent infringement triples the damages, while unknowing patent infringement is frequently settled amicably (by modifying or withdrawing an infringing product). That's why it's better not to go looking, except in special cases (e.g. you're the Ogg people, and a patent-free music coder is your primary goal). The other thing often missed is that most patents are not valid (that is, they will fall on the first court challenge).
The patent nuclear weapon (ZDNet) Posted Aug 25, 2003 20:31 UTC (Mon) by daniel (subscriber, #3181) [Link] Knowing patent infringement triples the damages, while unknowing patent infringement is frequently settled amicably (by modifying or withdrawing an infringing product). That's why it's better not to go looking, except in special cases (e.g. you're the Ogg people, and a patent-free music coder is your primary goal).What does it matter if the damages are X or 3X, if somebody comes after you and your project with an army of zombie lawyers? You're still in serious trouble. I wouldn't count on the attacker being "amicable" either. If we ever want to be free of this blight on human endeavor, there is no alternative but to attack the problem head on. A short term, effective counter is to understand the attacker's patents very well, and sidestep them adeptly as Karim Yaghmour did with the RTLinux patent (see Adeos). This is much better than waiting around with your head in the sand like an ostrich, hoping that 1X damages won't kill your project as dead as 3X. Besides being an effective way of getting past a specific patent that is causing actual, measurable damage, this sort of logic-based attack greatly weakens the perceived and actual value of software patents in general, because it shows how vulnerable a weak one is. To create a strong one will then require much more original research and money spent, thereby making the whole idea of running a patent bucket shop much less attractive as a business model than it is now. In the long term, we can never let up the pressure on the system itself. Especially, we must expose it to scrutiny by the general public, who are in the end, the greatest victims of these abuses. That doesn't mean that Linus should spend his time this way, that would be a pathetic waste of his talent. But others of us can and should. We have to use every means of combat that's available to us.
The patent nuclear weapon (ZDNet) Posted Aug 25, 2003 21:21 UTC (Mon) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link] The reason it matters whether you look or not is because any non-trivial program infringes on a number of software patents. Literally, any. If you program, you are infringing on patents, and there's no way to avoid it.If you look and avoid them, you'll write no code. If you look and don't avoid them, you're legally culpable for more damages. Not looking is the best option.
The patent nuclear weapon (ZDNet) Posted Aug 25, 2003 21:23 UTC (Mon) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] IMHO, that is exactly why, a "Institution" for Open Source Patent Licenses, as i state below, could make the work of "select and validation", that any serious court battle will need [(as vs M$);(it could do some sort of enforcement to)], in return for the use of that patents.Lets face it, even EU is gonna have some form of patents, a much less restrictive scheme i belive, but software patents anyway. And if you can't defeat them, you better join them ! All this in the view that a common pool of code like the all Open Source movement, as more value and potencial than any individual corporation could ever aspire to have!... the recent "SCO SLIDE FIASCO" is just one prove of that potencial... and how valuable it can be to IBM in its SCO vs IBM case!
The patent nuclear weapon (ZDNet) Posted Aug 25, 2003 20:16 UTC (Mon) by drathos (guest, #6454) [Link] I think that this post is even more important.I've been told the same thing by C?O types at places I've worked before. (Though in Linux's case it's a bit trickier with code coming from outside sources.)
The patent nuclear weapon (ZDNet) Posted Aug 25, 2003 17:35 UTC (Mon) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] "He explicitly said that some of the enterprise features in Linux were being held up until he got clearance to use patented technology"Where are those -"WRITEN"- clearances ?... Because without a "WRITEN DOCUMENT" a future management of those corporations can simply walk over Linus as easly as you drink a glass of water.
The patent nuclear weapon (ZDNet) Posted Aug 25, 2003 19:58 UTC (Mon) by error27 (subscriber, #8346) [Link] It's stupid to care about specific software patents because everyone infringes on patents if they write code. It just means that you are liable for more damages if it goes to court.In that case, IBM submitted code and the VM hackers already knew it was coverred by IBM patents. They requested and got documentation from IBM for those patents. I'm certain that there are many other places where the Linux kernel infringes on IBM patents. All large software does.
The patent nuclear weapon (ZDNet) Posted Aug 25, 2003 20:54 UTC (Mon) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] That is exactly my point.Can't the all thing suddenly blow up ?... That is if any corporation goes dire strait like SCO, it could say "WHAT THE HELL I'VE NOTHING TO LOSE"... And if everybody is infringing one another, including M$, better saying most of all M$ (yes i belive they run the largest pool of infringing code exceding perhaps all the others together), wouldnt it better to centralize on Open Source and give it the necessary legitimacy ? What the well!!!... it means you are non liable at all for patented code infringement that is put there by the owners of that patented code themselfs.
Nuclear maybe, MAD no Posted Aug 25, 2003 16:39 UTC (Mon) by raph (guest, #326) [Link] I definitely agree that software patents are bad. However, IBM choosing to use them in their countersuit against SCO won't have much impact on the patent situation for the rest of the free software world. Those other patents have always existed, as has the possibility of enforcing them.The fact is, just about any program more sophisticated than "hello world" infringes one or more patents (and even then, you still carry risk of frivolous claims). The one thing that keeps the software world from completely melting down is the high cost of litigation - in the ballpark of $1 million. For the most part, the developers of free software are poor enough that the cost/benefit ratio of going after them simply doesn't work out. If IBM turns evil, they'd be able to do a tremendous amount of damage to free software, simply because they hold such a vast array of patents. However, that would be equally true whether or not they pursued patents in their fight with SCO. And, in this case, enforcing the patents makes business sense. Not to be too alarmist, but the patents we really have to worry about are Microsoft's. Using patents to destroy Linux makes sense to them, even if there is little hope of recovering enough damages to justify the cost of litigation. I get the sense that the only thing holding them back is the risk of antitrust and similar charges. As the political climate shifts ever toward big business, and as MS is attempting to paint Linux developers and users as intellectual property pirates, these disincentives too could disappear. Even so, free software would continue to survive, nay thrive. We're good at functioning in a hostile climate, and our hugely distributed nature makes us very difficult to attack. The train has gathered enough momentum now that it cannot be stopped.
Nuclear maybe, MAD no Posted Aug 25, 2003 17:04 UTC (Mon) by dwalters (subscriber, #4207) [Link] I get the sense that the only thing holding them back is the risk of antitrust and similar charges. The other thing holding them back is probably the lack of a uniform software patent playing field in Europe. Right now they wouldn't get as much bang for the buck going after free software with patent attacks, as they're limited geographically. Once the floodgates are opened to software patents in Europe, expect Microsoft to make the most of it. The European parliament vote is now just days away!
Nuclear maybe, MAD no Posted Aug 25, 2003 18:02 UTC (Mon) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] Isn't only in Linux but there are other, i belive, applications and projects that have software patents inside, some of them well known ones, and there aren't any licences that agree to that use, besides the patent owners complaisence.IMHO, two ways exist to mitigate the problem: 1) The very hard one of stoping software patents, wich could only happen in europe (EU) now (JAPAN have them),... 2) Have a "ENDLESS" Writen Public License to all those patents that there are in Open Code, and that could be adden in context of Open Standards,... more or less like the IETF and WWW Consorcium,... tough job, but much less hard than above, because many Big Corporations, owners of the majority of patents, are now participating, contributing and "taking advantage" of the quality that the Open-Source method has to offer... But tomorrow, if IBM par example, gets to be in a financial down, much certainly to happen because business proceed by cicles, it could decide to collect money from all patents that seem ok now in open source... much, much worst than SCO now, because instead of dubious copyrights "we'll" have to deal with patents... YES OPEN-SOURCE CAN AND COULD BE FUNCTIONING IN THE UNDERGROUND, BUT ; Wouldnt it be better to "ILUMINATE" those corporate minds that a commom pool of code, like the Open-Source nowadays, has much more value and potential than any of those corporations individually can ever aspire to have,... and that the "Institution" that holds the endless permission for that Patents could also "ENFORCE" them as the RED HAT litigation fund suggest,... with the simple obvious explanation that millions of eyes in open source are *infinitly* better at poking security holes and also patent infringement by Microsoft, than Microsoft itself. If this happens then in the first time in IT history, M$ would be helpless.
Nuclear maybe, MAD no Posted Aug 26, 2003 0:13 UTC (Tue) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] IMHO this possible solution:*) A Open Source Patent Licence "Holder" Institute, if done clear in the open and with the support of all around the world community, and with clear power to gather "select and validation" information, because the contents of the patent are clear and open, and with "pre-litigation" enforcable power (the amicable part),... ... makes all the business sense, IMO to the majority of the corporations involved in Open Source now, specialy IBM because: IMHO, IBM, HP, SUN, NOVELL, SGI, RED HAT, SUSE?, MANDRAKE?..., have a lot to gain from the above. The actual paradigma only makes sense to M$, that can at will squeeze hardware margins by imposing the "M$ TAX", and benefit from billions in bank to "BLUFF" IBM and all the others put togheter, to not go in "DOOM DAY" patent legal war even if there are reasons to. (TimeSys is just the tip of the Iceberg)
The patent nuclear weapon (ZDNet) Posted Aug 25, 2003 22:43 UTC (Mon) by dwandre (guest, #14296) [Link] IBM not only has a large patent portfolio but also a large number of ideas that don't become patents are published as Technical Disclosures, also for the purpose of patent protection. See the IBM web page for more information on where to get copies; they're not free anymore unless you go to your nearest US Patent office. I don't think Linux as an open source project has anything to worry about from IBM because it fits too neatly with IBM's business objectives. Projects like JBoss and MySQL that compete with IBM software products don't enjoy that luxury.
Here's something YOU CAN DO Posted Aug 26, 2003 3:22 UTC (Tue) by dwalters (subscriber, #4207) [Link] If you're against software patents, and you are a webmaster, you can do something on Wedensday that COULD help make a difference: Join the Online Demonstration Against Software Patents on August the 27th. All you have to do is replace the home page of your web site with a page declaring your opposition to software patents. There's more information, including sample pages you can use, at http://swpat.ffii.org/group/demo/index.en.html. This demonstration is timed to coincide with the protest outside the European parliament on Wednesday, but even if you're not European, please consider doing this to show solidarity. The more web sites throughout the world that support this protest, the more effective it will be. Here's a quote from the FFII web site about this: The idea is that with software patents many sites running/serving possibly patent infringing software have to go offline sooner or later. So why not demonstrate this effect before it's too late?
|
|||||||||||