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
Posted Aug 5, 2004 23:23 UTC (Thu) by stevenj (guest, #421)Parent article: Software patents no bigger threat to Free Software than to proprietary software
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.
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]
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.