Linux Scare Tactics (Forbes) [LWN.net]

Linux Scare Tactics (Forbes)

Posted Aug 2, 2004 20:06 UTC (Mon) by rsidd (guest, #2582)
Parent article: Linux Scare Tactics (Forbes)

I agree, this "smells to high heaven". If OSRM are worried about the implications of these patent violations, they can tell Linus and friends. If they think some of these patents are invalid, they can try to mount a legal challenge to those patents. But not saying what these patents are, and instead selling insurance based on scare-mongering: isn't that SCO's business plan? Perhaps Pamela Jones of Groklaw can explain why she thinks this is different.

to post comments

Linux Scare Tactics (Forbes)

Posted Aug 2, 2004 20:19 UTC (Mon) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link]

I'm not crazy about what they are doing, but if I were Linus and these guys offered to send me the list, I would urge them not to, and furthermore if they did I would delete the mail unread. That's because of the way patent law works: knowing infringement triples the damages if the patent is ultimately upheld and a court decides that Linux infringes.

In any case, it it quite likely that Windows as well as OS X also violate at least half of those patents; there are tons of bogus patents out there. Most patents are flawed in some way, are ridiculously overbroad, or have tons of prior art making them legally questionable. Linux (and BSD) are more vulnerable because patent violations are easier to find. But Windows isn't safe if a war breaks out.

Are you sure you want to see the list?

Posted Aug 2, 2004 20:47 UTC (Mon) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (6 responses)

You can see the list. You may be contaminated afterward and exposed to triple damages if you infringe because you would then be knowingly infringing. Any volunteers? Those of you who don't get involved in software development might be reasonably safe ones. I can set you up with the right people. For the protection of everyone else, I would ask that you not publish stuff that could contaminate others. But that should be easy enough.

By the way: I'm not going to look at that list, I do too much software development.

Bruce

Are you sure you want to see the list?

Posted Aug 2, 2004 21:14 UTC (Mon) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] (2 responses)

I agree that we need the infrastructure in place ahead of time. However, the fact is, for whatever reason, Linux has not yet been the target of patent suits. They may be on the way, but where are they? Linux is already stepping on a lot of proprietary toes and we are not seeing the rash of suits that people have been predicting since the mid 1990's.

My point is, why are we starting off the scare mongering ourselves? Why are we adding (what is it? $150,000?) to the cost of using Linux in the absence of a real and present problem. The only reason I can see is that it's good for OSRM's bottom line. I've not seen anything indicating a nonprofit status for OSRM.

Are you sure you want to see the list?

Posted Aug 3, 2004 5:10 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (1 responses)

Well, all of the conditions are in place for someone to start the lawsuits with a bang. A big bang. If MS were to do it, I'm sure they would pattern it after the RIAA and file 500 at once.

It may be that they continue to wait until the software patenting situation in Europe firms up. But if some little twerps like SCO could do what they did, I'm not going to sit around and think that the patent lawsuits might never come.

Bruce

Are you sure you want to see the list?

Posted Aug 3, 2004 13:53 UTC (Tue) by pdsdst (subscriber, #19395) [Link]

They must wait or else the negative impact of the EPO version of the patent directive on the European economy will become all too clear for the politicans. Currently most of them think software patents are good because the US seems to be doing just fine (remember, they are not programmers and much closer to lawyers in their thinking).

One thing to remember about European politicians though is that if they implement a stupid directive that later turns out to threaten EU jobs (directly or indirectly) they do have the resolv to change it. At least if it is a US company that is the threat.

Daniel

Are you sure you want to see the list?

Posted Aug 4, 2004 8:53 UTC (Wed) by viro (subscriber, #7872) [Link]

How elegant... So let me get it straight - you have not seen the
list; you won't look at it and neither should anybody doing software
development. May I ask who had created that list, what kind of
credentials do they have and how much do you really trust their
ability to analyse the code and accuracy of their conclusions?

Are you sure you want to see the list?

Posted Aug 4, 2004 15:16 UTC (Wed) by Oddly_Drac (guest, #23754) [Link]

> Any volunteers?

Sure. Until the US annexes England, I don't see much happening in terms of patent infringment until the rules are shoehorned thorugh the EU.

> For the protection of everyone else, I would ask that you not publish stuff that could contaminate others.

I take it that the EFF has received the list, or that someone is undertaking to notify the authors of potentially infringing software that they might want to investigate a different way of using method X, or are you suggesting that the problems are more fundamental?

> I'm not going to look at that list, I do too much software development.

How are you going to develop in the future? Hum loudly whenever anyone mentions a patent to get a 66% reduction in the final award?

Are you sure you want to see the list?

Posted Aug 10, 2004 1:38 UTC (Tue) by Olinda_Spider (guest, #22366) [Link]

You can see the list. You may be contaminated afterward and exposed to triple damages if you infringe because you would then be knowingly infringing. Any volunteers? Yes, I would like to see the list. How can I obtain it?

(Sorry for the delayed response, I was on vacation.)

Pat

Linux Scare Tactics (Forbes)

Posted Aug 3, 2004 14:54 UTC (Tue) by stumbles (guest, #8796) [Link] (2 responses)

I agree. This sounds similar good ol' Mr. Blepp running around in Germany with a
suitcase full of evidence but some how has not made it to the courts here. When I
first heard of OSRM and their goals, I had my doubts then. This little exercise of
theirs does nothing but cause more doubt about their real goals. Which in my view
not to really help GPL but use scare tactics to chum business for themselves. As
long as OSRM keeps these supposed findings a secret or you have to actually ask
for it, then these guys are little better than SCOG.

Let's Pay Attention, People!

Posted Aug 8, 2004 5:47 UTC (Sun) by lilo (guest, #661) [Link]

stumbles wrote:

I agree. This sounds similar good ol' Mr. Blepp running around in Germany with a suitcase full of evidence but some how has not made it to the courts here. When I first heard of OSRM and their goals, I had my doubts then. This little exercise of theirs does nothing but cause more doubt about their real goals. Which in my view not to really help GPL but use scare tactics to chum business for themselves. As long as OSRM keeps these supposed findings a secret or you have to actually ask for it, then these guys are little better than SCOG.

This is not fishy at all. Pay careful attention. This is the way patent law works: willful infringement increases the damages. If you know about a specific patent and a court decides you are infringing, you will pay and pay and pay.

If you're looking for the differences between OSRM and SCO, let's start here: SCO won't tell you the infringements without your signing an NDA. OSRM will tell you, presumably without an NDA, but they advise you not to look if you do kernel work. IANAL but from everything I've seen, it's good advice.

Another difference: SCO are the people who are trying to soak IBM for all they're worth, and are making unsubstantiated claims like crazy. PJ, the lady who runs Groklaw, is one of the people working for OSRM. I don't know about you, but I think she's done a dynamite and careful job of researching SCO's claims and filings, and has uncovered a lot of problems with them. She's one of the people who are keeping SCO from being able to play the games they're trying to play on the community. If you want a sample of her work, look at Groklaw. We have every reason to conclude she's on the up-and-up, whereas SCO's behavior speaks for itself.

Look at the business model of OSRM. Look at their own description of what they're trying to do---they're providing business risk insurance for business organizations that are nervous about attacks such as SCO's. This is a very conventional thing to do and it's a good thing to do. It's a good thing to do because it means that large organizations can reduce their perceived risk in adopting GNU/Linux and other free software. It's a good thing to do because the companies that adopt such insurance are the companies that an SCO would otherwise be attacking because they're easy prey. Risk insurance makes litigious business models less lucrative. Will OSRM make a profit? I hope so! "Free software" means "libre", not "gratis". If they're helping the community, and I think they will, they should prosper at it.

Last comment, folks. Pay attention to what's going on. Let's not attack our own. We have enough trouble from year to year without going after people who are trying to help.

Addendum (from OSRM press release)

Posted Aug 8, 2004 6:05 UTC (Sun) by lilo (guest, #661) [Link]

"Well-known patent attorney Dan Ravicher, founder and executive director of the Public Patent Foundation and senior counsel to the Free Software Foundation, reviewed all U.S. software patents that have been litigated through appeal, examining whether the Linux kernel contains technology that could trigger patent claims against end-users. In conclusion, he found that no court-validated software patent is infringed by the Linux kernel.

"However, Ravicher also found 283 issued but not yet court-validated software patents that, if upheld as valid by the courts, could potentially be used to support patent claims against Linux. In response, OSRM will be expanding its risk mitigation and insurance offerings to cover this quantifiable risk."