Software patents no bigger threat to Free Software than to proprietary software
| From: | Free Software Foundation Europe <press-AT-fsfeurope.org> | |
| To: | press-release-AT-fsfeurope.org | |
| Subject: | [FSFE PR][EN] Software patents no bigger threat to Free Software than to proprietary software | |
| Date: | Thu, 05 Aug 2004 02:11:21 +0200 |
Essen, Aug 5th 2004 In reaction to the decision by the City of Munich to re-evaluate its migration plans to Free Software, the Free Software Foundation Europe points out that software patents are equally a significant problem for both Free Software and proprietary software alike. "Without doubt, software patents are a roadblock to innovation. They will extort a high price that has to be paid by all European citizens through loss of competitiveness, and also jobs", says Georg Greve, President of the FSFE. Software patents can not be a reason to stop migration from non-free to Free Software. While Free Software is going to suffer along with all of industry and society, there is no need to fear for its existence or legal safety any more than there is need to fear such legal insecurity with regard to proprietary software. "Therefore, the FSFE encourages the municipality of Munich to not allow being stopped on its way to freedom by tactics of spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt", says Georg Greve. He also adds: "As a related, but different issue we also suggest them to increase the pressure on the German government to refuse software patents once and for all." About the Free Software Foundation Europe The Free Software Foundation Europe (FSF Europe) is a charitable non-governmental organization dedicated to all aspects of Free Software in Europe. Access to software determines who may participate in a digital society. Therefore the freedoms to use, copy, modify and redistribute software - as described in the Free Software definition- allow equal participation in the information age. Creating awareness for these issues, securing Free Software politically and legally, and giving people freedom by supporting development of Free Software are central issues of the FSF Europe, which was founded in 2001 as the European sister organization of the Free Software Foundation in the United States. Further information: http://www.fsfeurope.org Contact: Georg C. F. Greve <greve at fsfeurope.org> Tel: +49-40-23809080 Fax: +49-40-23809081 _______________________________________________ Press-release mailing list Press-release@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/press-release
Posted Aug 5, 2004 22:53 UTC (Thu)
by mgh (guest, #5696)
[Link] (2 responses)
There are no valid arguments to the fact that Free software uses patented "technology". The real questions are "how much" and "when will it bite". Since there seems to be no "Free Patent" community, there is no portfolio to cross license and so there is vulnerability, although redhat have made moves in this direction.
The business rules that surround patent offices seem to allow patenting any idea not already patented (prior art searches against existing patents only). Patent offices appear to be government supported monopolies in the registration of ideas.
Can we create an alternative to PTO to register ideas worldwide or do we have to join to win and agressively register ideas with PTOs as prior art?
Posted Aug 5, 2004 23:47 UTC (Thu)
by AnswerGuy (guest, #1256)
[Link] (1 responses)
As for listing proprietary software, we can't ever be sure that a company doesn't have a private cross-licensing agreement so such a database would be of no value to free software developers, users, or vendors.
Jim
Posted Aug 6, 2004 0:05 UTC (Fri)
by mgh (guest, #5696)
[Link]
With regards to cross-licensing, yes, some will have such agreements, some will not. What we would gain would be information; it would show the scale of the problem and I believe, also show that:
a) patents on software are a huge problem for all sw developers regardless of licensing model
Opinion: sometimes groupings of people consider themselves to be somewhat insular. They don't play by the established rules... so they don't need to play by the estabilshed rules. Not true, the sooner the OS community takes responsibility for this issus the quicker it will dealt with.
The real strength of the OSS community is not in the software, its in the method of creating excellent results collabratively ... I believe that the OSS model will scale to other areas with good benefit including this one. OSS is a by product of the net and cheap/free communication much as we are doing here.
Posted Aug 5, 2004 23:23 UTC (Thu)
by stevenj (guest, #421)
[Link] (6 responses)
Posted Aug 6, 2004 7:51 UTC (Fri)
by hppnq (guest, #14462)
[Link] (5 responses)
Posted Aug 6, 2004 8:31 UTC (Fri)
by talahin (guest, #4595)
[Link] (4 responses)
Most software patents are not about the implementation (the actual code) which is allready covered by copyright, but about the functionality (the idea). So no matter how much you rewrite the code, if the functionality is the same, you are still infringing the patent.
compare it with a description of 'a device to capture small rodents' or 'a device for cleaning surfaces with the help of a low pressure chamber'
Gerrard
Posted Aug 6, 2004 10:06 UTC (Fri)
by hppnq (guest, #14462)
[Link] (3 responses)
Of course I can always rewrite the code so that it no longer infringes <insert favourite patent>. If that means my software does no longer offer its intended functionality, too bad: apparently I have reinvented the wheel. For instance, a patent regarding a device to capture small rodents does not cover the purpose of the device, which is to capture rodents. If I can find a way to capture rodents without using a device, I'm okay. If, however, the whole concept of capturing small rodents is patented, I've got a problem, yes. I'd go for the slightly bigger rodents then. ;-)
The biggest problem is this, I think: I can still be forced to pay up even if everyone involved agrees I was not aware of any infringement, and even if I rewrite the offending code.
Posted Aug 6, 2004 17:36 UTC (Fri)
by riel (subscriber, #3142)
[Link] (2 responses)
For more details, see http://webshop.ffii.org/
Of course, pretty much every software patent is about patenting a concept, not an implementation. Saying that patents should cover specific implementations doesn't apply either, since implementations are already protected by copyright. Really, there is no argument for software patents (unless you're a patent lawyer).
Posted Aug 6, 2004 22:32 UTC (Fri)
by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)
[Link]
That's true of the new breed of "business method" patents, which never should have been allowed, but it isn't true of most patents, which are specific enough that it's often possible to come up with an alternative approach that doesn't hit the claims.
Posted Aug 7, 2004 4:25 UTC (Sat)
by stomfi (guest, #10602)
[Link]
Posted Aug 6, 2004 12:31 UTC (Fri)
by NRArnot (subscriber, #3033)
[Link] (4 responses)
If you write software as a private individual and make it available for other people to copy, I don't think you can be sued. You aren't infringing, because you aren't using the patented invention for gain. Indeed, unless I'm misinformed, you are quite entitled to build a patented contraption (even working from the patent itself) for personal education or to satisfy curiosity. It's profiting from it that's infringement.
And the people that take copies? Well, if they are using your work for profit then they are infringing. But it's a lot harder to stamp on a zillion small infringers than on one outfit selling proprietary, infringing software for their own gain!
Obligatory disclaimer - I am not a lawyer (and what little I know pertains to the UK, it may not generalise to other countries).
Posted Aug 6, 2004 22:34 UTC (Fri)
by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)
[Link]
No, the distributor of a free program can still be sued for damages (lost sales for the proprietary program put out by the patent owner).
Posted Aug 9, 2004 17:37 UTC (Mon)
by ironhacker (guest, #11389)
[Link]
I agree, but not for the reason that you state. Proprietary software faces the biggest patent risk because companies that directly profit from the code have money worth taking. People with minimal assets are not very attractive targets. Only a few companies will spend money on this type of pursuit. If that is not enough, I can think of a number of ways for OSS people to make themselves even more difficult targets. Besides, once the code is out "in the wild", good luck putting the genie back into the bottle (e.g. P2P, DeCSS).
Suing the users of the code is not any better -- ask SCO how well they are doing with Daimler Chrysler and Autozone. Statistically, end users face a more plausible threat from a BSA audit than a patent infringment lawsuit.
When I was 18 years old, I was shopping for car insurance. The minimum legal coverage was $40,000. Naturally, the insurance agent wanted me to buy even MORE insurance, despite the fact that the rates for 18-year-old drivers were exhorbitant to begin with.
The sales pitch: "If you had an accident and the damages exceeded $40,000, wouldn't you want to protect yourself from liability?".
My response: "I don't own anything of value, so having the minimum legal coverage is the ultimate protection. Nobody will sue me because there is no reward for winning. "
Posted Aug 12, 2004 9:10 UTC (Thu)
by bignose (subscriber, #40)
[Link] (1 responses)
Non sequitur. Just because other people are invited to freely share my code, doesn't mean I'm not making money off it.
Posted Aug 20, 2004 6:38 UTC (Fri)
by xoddam (guest, #2322)
[Link]
Would it be worthwhile to create an open database that lists software patents and then cross-references them with all software; Free and Proprietry? Could be useful to help separate rumour from fact and highlight the true extend of PTO restriction of innovation.Software patents no bigger threat to Free Software
Mark
... that such a database is more of a detriment to free software developers because it may offer support to claims of *willful* violation of the patent and result in trebled damages.It's been repeatedly pointed out ...
I agree that this would be an issue that needs to be considered; free registration would be one way of helping with this because all visitors would be registered. If you don't want to know; don't register.It's been repeatedly pointed out ...
b) using proprietry software will not mean immunity from prosecution
c) the playing field between the free type licenses and others is somewhat more level than is being implied.
A proprietary-software company sued for patent infringement has the option of biting the bullet and paying the license/royalty fee requested by the patent owner. A free-software company probably won't have that option, especially if the software in question is GPLed, because the patent license is unlikely to allow distribution of the software under free/open-source terms.
patents are a bigger threat to free software because we can't pay royalties
So they would have to rewrite the offending code.
patents are a bigger threat to free software because we can't pay royalties
This is what most pro-patent people want you to think. patents are a bigger threat to free software because we can't pay royalties
Well, that's the broken patent system for you. ;-)
patents are a bigger threat to free software because we can't pay royalties
patents are a bigger threat to free software because we can't pay royalties
Of course I can always rewrite the code so that it no longer infringes <insert favourite patent>
That is not true at all. Patents lock down concepts, not implementation. If somebody holds a patent on using a patent on
"Selling things over a network using a server, client and payment processor, or using a client and a server" (EP803105 and EP738446), then it is impossible for anybody to avoid infringing the patent by rewriting the code...
patents are a bigger threat to free software because we can't pay royalties
If I have a new macro idea, which includes all sorts of other common patents are a bigger threat to free software because we can't pay royalties
general usage ideas, and patent the macro idea, does this mean that
predators can patent any part of it? And what happens if the idea is
common to any kind of communication and interaction, including vocal face
to face and written. Will we see patents on say the idea of pen pals?
The biggest problem I see is how to have a world wide patent on anything
as a monopolistic predator could take out patents in all the countries
that one hasn't marketed a product to yet.
Software patents may be more of a threat to proprietary software.
Software patents no bigger threat to Free Software
Software patents no bigger threat to Free Software
>"Software patents may be more of a threat to proprietary software."Software patents no bigger threat to Free Software
> If you write software as a private individual and make it available forSoftware patents no bigger threat to Free Software
> other people to copy, I don't think you can be sued. You aren't infringing,
> because you aren't using the patented invention for gain.
Where are you two from, Nose City? Who are you calling Bignose?