Bilski's growing up, and smacking down some bad software patents (opensource.com)

Posted Jul 19, 2011 20:58 UTC (Tue) by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
In reply to: Bilski's growing up, and smacking down some bad software patents (opensource.com) by ovitters
Parent article: Bilski's growing up, and smacking down some bad software patents (opensource.com)

I don't think Florian wants to paint Red Hat as »evil«. What his comment seems to say is that, in the software patent field, they are acting like a publically traded company (which by law is required to attempt to turn a profit) rather than a knight in shining armour fighting on behalf of the FLOSS community. This is very different from »evil«. It is obvious that Red Hat could do a lot more to work towards the outright abolishing of software patents, but it is also obvious that it might not automatically be in the company's best interest to actually devote a lot of resources to this, when it may be more commercially expedient to make other arrangements.

The problem, it seems, is really with people who would much rather see Red Hat as the knight in shining armour, and who do not enjoy being told (by Florian) that Red Hat sometimes acts like a commercial company. Red Hat is not in the business of making the world a better place. Red Hat, like any company, is in the business of generating profits for its investors. They may go about that by doing things that also happen to make the world a better place, which is nice, and so far they seem to have a pretty good track record compared to many other companies, but they are under no obligation to do so.

Bilski's growing up, and smacking down some bad software patents (opensource.com)

Posted Jul 19, 2011 21:11 UTC (Tue) by mikov (guest, #33179) [Link]

Seems rational. Hmm, perhaps a bit too rational! Obviously you are being secretly paid by Florian to defend him. There is no other explanation.

public companies

Posted Jul 19, 2011 22:12 UTC (Tue) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]

they are acting like a publically traded company (which by law is required to attempt to turn a profit)

I don't know where this very strange idea comes from. It simply isn't true.

Bilski's growing up, and smacking down some bad software patents (opensource.com)

Posted Jul 20, 2011 22:11 UTC (Wed) by cmccabe (guest, #60281) [Link]

> It is obvious that Red Hat could do a lot more to work towards
> the outright abolishing of software patents,

Is it?

I have a hard time imagining what Red Hat could be doing to help the anti-software patent cause, that they are not already doing. In the Bilski case, they were one of the few companies to file an amicus curiae brief coming out against all software patents. Google also filed an amicus curiae, but they only recommended the abolition of business method patents, not all software patents (I'm simplifying a little here, read the brief if you want to know more).

You could argue that Red Hat should refuse to pay any and all patent trolls, but in the real world, that is simply not an option. Even Microsoft and Google pay patent trolls, and they have much bigger war chests than Red Hat. You have to choose which cases to fight, and which to settle. Fighting losing battles is worse than useless-- it's actually harmful, since it can establish judicial precedents that could grease the wheels for future trolls.

You could argue that Red Hat should publicize the patent cases they lose, but it's not clear how that would help abolish software patents.

So really, in summary, I think Red Hat has a pretty good record on this particular issue.