Weekly Edition
Return to the Front pageSponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
A different use of software patents
Many electrons have been expended in the discussion of Microsoft's
"Palladium" trusted computing initiative. Many fear that Palladium
will become the digital rights management (DRM) system of the future,
threatening to bring a definitive end to fair use rights and our control
over our own computers in general. Microsoft has done its best to distance
Palladium from DRM; in fact, it may have distanced itself a little
too far. Consider this
message from Lucky Green, posted to the cryptography mailing list in
early August:
Peter Biddle, Product Unit Manager for Palladium, very publicly and
unambiguously stated during Wednesday's panel at the USENIX
Security conference that the Palladium team, despite having been
asked by Microsoft's anti-piracy groups for methods by which
Palladium could assist in the fight against software piracy, knows
of no way in which Palladium can be utilized to assist this end.
Palladium, they say, is just a way to protect users from rogue software - no DRM stuff there, honest. Lucky, however, is apparently a little more creative in this regard; thus he has announced:
I, on the other hand, am able to think of several methods in which
Palladium or operating systems built on top of TCPA can be used to
assist in the enforcement of software licenses and the fight
against software piracy. I therefore, over the course of the night,
wrote - and my patent agent filed with the USPTO earlier today - an
application for an US Patent covering numerous methods by which
software applications can be protected against software piracy on a
platform offering the features that are slated to be provided by
Palladium.
As Lucky points out, there is no way that the Microsoft Palladium team could be unaware of any prior art with regard to his patent filing; their public statement that no such art exists must thus be true. The patent might just be granted. One assumes that the licensing terms for such a patent might be other than favorable. One could even imagine that, in a fantastic scenario, this patent could end Palladium's usefulness as a platform for DRM systems. Of course, that scenario does require a great deal of fantasy about one's ability to stand up to the industry's lawyers. Many of us worry a great deal about the use of software patents to gain a lock on the many worthwhile things that can be done with computers. The offensive use of patents in an attempt to shut down things that somebody thinks should not be done with computers is a rather different way of doing things. It is an approach that carries a number of risks: legal expenses, for example, not to mention the lack of any sort of consensus on what techniques, if any, should be blocked in this manner. Of course, with enough fantasy, one can envision another outcome from use use of blocking patents: a wider realization of the damage caused by software patents and a reform of software patent law. One can always hope. (Thanks to NTK, which always beats us to the really good stuff.) (Log in to post comments)
you can lose the patent if you refuse to license or use it (?) Posted Sep 5, 2002 5:39 UTC (Thu) by stevenj (subscriber, #421) [Link] I am not a lawyer, but I've had many discussions with patent lawyers, and I seem to remember being told that if you use a patent to obstruct a technology by refusing to license or use it, then you can forfeit rights to it. Please check into this before devoting a lot of energy to the subject.
you can lose the patent if you refuse to license or use it (?) Posted Sep 5, 2002 12:40 UTC (Thu) by tres (guest, #352) [Link] First: GO LUCKY!!!!!!!Second: I hate to site a source of entertainment but I once saw a Steven Segall Movie, On Deadly Ground, that had a short section at the end of it that discussed things like tires that could last for 1,000 miles, radial automobile engines that could get 70 miles to the gallon, and many other patented things that were controlled by mega-corps (usually the oil industry) for the purpose of preventing them from entering the market. These statements are from memory only so I may be wrong on the details. It seems that either you are in error, or some Mega-corps are blatantly disregarding the law. Perhaps no one has chosen to challenge their patents for fear that their pockets aren't deep enough Regards,
you can lose the patent if you refuse to license or use it (?) Posted Sep 5, 2002 16:44 UTC (Thu) by ZogKarndon (guest, #3566) [Link] Uh - all those things are urban legends. Patents expire. The whole point of the patent system is to publicize inventions; in order to get a patent, you have to describe exactly how to create your object. If you had a million-mile tire (if I had a tire that only lasted 1000 miles, I'd be pissed as hell - any decent tire lasts at least 25,000 miles, and should last 50,000), if you were to patent it, you would have to describe how to make one. Then, in 17 years, anyone could make it. If those devices existed, they would be on the market, since these things have been rumored to exist for well over 50 years.
you can lose the patent if you refuse to license or use it (?) Posted Sep 5, 2002 16:22 UTC (Thu) by bluetea (guest, #1108) [Link] I don't know if that's true or not, but it seems that even if it is you could always come up with licensing terms that make it unattractive without flatly refusing to license it.
you can lose the patent if you refuse to license or use it (?) Posted Sep 6, 2002 1:03 UTC (Fri) by edgewood (subscriber, #1123) [Link] For example, he could require that all code that uses his patent be licensed under the GPL. <grin>
you can lose the patent if you refuse to license or use it (?) Posted Sep 7, 2002 0:03 UTC (Sat) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] So why in the hell as microsoft asked for a licence that "makes corporate sense" over patents they eventualy own on vertex shaders. Is that corporate sense meaning they will refuse to licence it for use in open source projects like the openGL 2. The openGL ARB includes all the major hardware graphics makers and they surely are willing to pay microsoft, as a whole, the sum of the amounts it is asking individualy.!!!THE BIG QUESTION: - CAN MICROSOFT REFUSE TO LICENCE PATENTS IT OWNES, TO OPEN SOURCE PROJECTS????? IF THE ANSWER IS NO: - IS THERE A WAY TO SUE MICROSOFT, SO THEY FORFEIT RIGHTS ON VERTEX SHADERS?????
expending electrons Posted Sep 5, 2002 15:25 UTC (Thu) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] How does one expend electrons? I spend lots of my time pushing them around, but I'd be very surprised if the world had any fewer electrons as a result of this activity!:-)
|
|||||||||||