LWN: Comments on "451 Group: Microsoft suing TomTom, not Linux, not open source"

How do patents encourage innovation?

anton — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 17:37:43 +0000

if you don't include the revenue that companies get from selling items that include their own patents, and the fact that without patents they may not sell as many, if any of those items (due to competition that is prevented by the patent) then you are just cooking the numbers to make your own point.

His argument may not be convincing, but that's far from cooking. If the patent really was innovative, one would expect other companies to license the patent, and there would be significant revenues from licensing.

And that still would not prove that the patent encourages innovation; the products based on the patent would be more expensive, so there would be less and probably fewer products, reducing the benefit of the innovation (that's what a monopoly does for you). If the innovation would have come about without the patent (as most patented innovations have), then the effect of the patent is exclusively negative.

Concerning revenue from "items that include patents they own", how would you count that? There is no way to know if an item "includes" a patent in general. And if that revenue was lower without the patent due to competition, then the consumers of these items or their competition would have paid a lower price, and probably bought more items, increasing the value coming out of the innovation.

451 Group: Microsoft suing TomTom, not Linux, not open source

dlang — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 12:14:46 +0000

when you talk about studies relateing to revenues from patents vs the legal costs associated with them, are you just looking at the revenue from licensing the patents? or are you looking at the revenue that companies get from selling items that include patents that they own?

if you don't include the revenue that companies get from selling items that include their own patents, and the fact that without patents they may not sell as many, if any of those items (due to competition that is prevented by the patent) then you are just cooking the numbers to make your own point.

451 Group: Microsoft suing TomTom, not Linux, not open source

Seegras — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 10:25:54 +0000

"How do software patents encourage innovation again, in actual practice?"

The question can be asked far broader:

"How do patents encourage innovation again, in actual practice?"

And the answer is: The don't. There were some effort to prove this statistically, but all investigations turned up this is NOT SIGNIFICANT. So there is absolutely no proof that patents encourage innovation. neither is there that (also in the broad field, not only software-patents) that they stiffle innovation.

However, another investigation turned up the fact that the only field where revenues from patents are higher than the legal costs associated with them are pharmaceuticals. So even if patents do not stiffle innovation, they are everywere but in the pharmaceutic industry JUST LEGAL OVERHEAD.

Patents can be used for corporate warfare, of course, but does the state really need to maintain a patent-system whose only benefit in most industries is to pay rents for lawyers and to serve to provide ammunition for corporate warfare?

CP/M filesystem format

xoddam — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 00:27:22 +0000

Not actually true; CP/M listed file blocks alongside the filename in the directory entries (using extra entries in the same directory table for really long files). There was a single directory for the whole volume, no hierarchical directory trees. CP/M's filesystem did not have an independent index table like a FAT. IIRC it didn't even have a free-blocks bitmap on disk (but don't cite me).

451 Group: Microsoft suing TomTom, not Linux, not open source

cry_regarder — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 17:00:09 +0000

Benevolent dictator employs all the lawyers writing a new constitution which never gets implemented...

451 Group: Microsoft suing TomTom, not Linux, not open source

SEMW — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 16:21:45 +0000

> How is "the Linux kernel as implemented by TomTom" different from "the Linux kernel"? It is GPL, and if TomTom did some modifications, that would have to be made public.

They would, and, sure enough, are available at http://www.tomtom.com/page.php?Page=gpl#kernel.

Measuring the contamination

pboddie — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 12:45:11 +0000

Indeed, counting the number of patents granted is really only measuring only one thing economically: the amount of money being spent at the patent office and the growth of the patent sector. And that's all that the lobbyists pushing for software patents care about: the health and wealth of the patent bureaucracy in each economic zone of interest.

451 Group: Microsoft suing TomTom, not Linux, not open source

error27 — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 07:03:43 +0000

Instead of being "worried" I'm mostly concerned with punishing Microsoft. I'm not a Microsoft hater, but companies have to understand there are consequences for their actions.

451 Group: Microsoft suing TomTom, not Linux, not open source

mgb — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 01:33:57 +0000

I believe it's nearer seven billion humans now. One could sue them all if one had nothing better to do. (I guess that rules out most LWN readers.)

I have no idea of the number of suable fictitious persons (e.g. corporations) so I added a few billion Does to bring the count up to a nice round number. One traditionally specifies more Does than one thinks one will need.

451 Group: Microsoft suing TomTom, not Linux, not open source

nix — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 00:28:16 +0000

There are ten billion Linux users? Six billion humans and four billion
dead people, via GhostScript?

451 Group: Microsoft suing TomTom, not Linux, not open source

mgb — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 23:43:42 +0000

> Well, you can't "sue the Linux community" (as such), you can only
> sue legal entities like a person or an organization.

One can sue a thing. Such lawsuits are called "in rem". For example, one might sue some chunks of Linux source code.

One can also sue Does. For example, one might sue Linus Torvalds and Does 1 through 10,000,000,000.

IANAL TINLA YMMV YADAYADA

451 Group: Microsoft suing TomTom, not Linux, not open source

berndp — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 21:53:33 +0000

Well, you can't "sue the Linux community" (as such), you can only sue legal entities like a person or an organization.

And ACK. Confirming the claims in court will motivate many companies - smaller and larger - to either not use Linux (to avoid moving into MSFTs firing line) or pay to not get sued by buying "licenses".

451 Group: Microsoft suing TomTom, not Linux, not open source

liljencrantz — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 21:46:47 +0000

My interpretation of the article differs. The way I read it, the 451 group are only claiming that suing TomTom for their use of the kernel is very different from suing the open source community in general (however you would go about that).

I strongly suspect that the 451 group have not actually checked how much TomTom is customising the Linux kernel.

As to their conclusion, it seems unforgivably naive. If the lawsuit goes Microsofts way, we can be reasonably sure that they will go after more companies, and Canonical Red Hat and IBM won't be far away.

451 Group: Microsoft suing TomTom, not Linux, not open source

tialaramex — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 19:15:37 +0000

How do software patents encourage innovation again, in actual practice?

As far as I know most arguments rely on a proxy measurement. ie since it is difficult to measure "innovation" you have to pick something else, and if you pick the right something you can "prove" your case. In the most ridiculous cases they use the patents themselves as the proxy, meaning they're just begging the question. In other examples they basically make some argument about innovation being signalled by economic growth, and then they ignore the huge confounding factors and declare that a growing economy (or growing IT sector, or whatever) is proof that software patents are a good idea. Obviously that argument is a bit fragile right now, since the economy including IT sectors is in free fall.

451 Group: Microsoft suing TomTom, not Linux, not open source

dwon — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 17:27:06 +0000

This sounds to me like a steaming pile of doubletalking bullshit. Of course they're not suing "Linux" or "open source": "Linux" and "open source" aren't legal entity, and therefore they can't break the law and they can't be sued.

Microsoft is sending a message: "Don't sell products that contain Linux, or you'll be sued into oblivion. Windows is cheaper than Linux-plus-lawsuits, even if you ultimately win the lawsuits." If that's not an attack against the heart of Linux and FOSS, I'm not sure what is.

How do software patents encourage innovation again, in actual practice?

451 Group: Microsoft suing TomTom, not Linux, not open source

asherringham — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 10:21:52 +0000

Nice. Someone called "dulles" worrying about front companies and "spooks"!

Alastair

451 Group: Microsoft suing TomTom, not Linux, not open source

petegn — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 08:26:21 +0000

Well looks like someone is expecting windBloWs 7 to fail big time so there rounding up the survival funds , Also with the EU and everyone else wanting a piece of them at the moment they gotta look for money by even fouler means than before .

And why their FAT claims have not been canned yet is well a joke i mean they stole the entire system off someone else in the first place it's only CPM with the syntax changed .

451 Group: Microsoft suing TomTom, not Linux, not open source

dkite — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 04:41:02 +0000

A benevolent dictator would do what?

Tickle them? Tell them lawyer jokes?

Derek

451 Group: Microsoft suing TomTom, not Linux, not open source

nix — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 01:21:17 +0000

Um, dulles, that quote from Henry VI was put in the mouth of a *bad guy*.
The first thing a tyrant does is indeed to kill all the lawyers (or at
least, in these more squeamish times, suborn them).

Wow

berndp — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 01:02:09 +0000

Which raises the question: Who is behind that "451 group" that they assist MSFT?

451 Group: Microsoft suing TomTom, not Linux, not open source

berndp — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 00:58:57 +0000

Well, "451 Group" claims that the TomTom-Kernel is 'very different' from the vanilla Linux kernel - not /me.

451 Group: Microsoft suing TomTom, not Linux, not open source

dulles — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 00:16:49 +0000

THE 451 GROUP AND SOFTWARE PATENTS ARE A JOKE

Any group which creates blogs titled "451 CAOS Theory" and signs them "Jay Lyman" is suspect of being spooks or a front company for spooks.

Furthermore, these Microsoft patents are a complete joke, and I can't believe any educated patent official signed off on them. The stupidity of those aged 65+ is incredible.

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
-William Shakespeare

451 Group: Microsoft suing TomTom, not Linux, not open source

liljencrantz — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 23:53:06 +0000

I find this very unlikely. As far as I understand, the patents relate to how vfat handles both long and short filenames in the same filesystem. That functionality is part of theLinux vfat driver and not something TomTom has added.

451 Group: Microsoft suing TomTom, not Linux, not open source

proski — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 21:07:06 +0000

I wonder if it's possible to make a patent free VFAT implementation that never creates legacy entries. Who really cares about DOS now? It's not like users are likely to access their SD cards in DOS.

Sure, it would be better to defeat Microsoft, but having a fallback solution could be useful. Other hardware manufacturers would be more at ease using a patent-free implementation.

451 Group: Microsoft suing TomTom, not Linux, not open source

berndp — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 20:40:07 +0000

Yes, this is not the first shot against free software, Linux and the like.
It is just the next shot - and with a vastly bigger gun.

So the 451 group reviewed the claims and is sure that only added and severely changed parts of the kernel are (supposedly) infringing some software patents?
Is the result of that review available somewhere?

451 Group: Microsoft suing TomTom, not Linux, not open source

bojan — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 20:32:09 +0000

> 'the Linux kernel as implemented by TomTom,' which is very different from 'the Linux kernel'

Linux kernel has a GPLv2 licence. So, any implementation by TomTom is available to others. Which means that TomTom's implementation is potentially everybody's implementation as well.

I'm not sure if the author of this blog entry is naive or uninformed. Or maybe both.

451 Group: Microsoft suing TomTom, not Linux, not open source

JoeF — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 20:13:17 +0000

How is "the Linux kernel as implemented by TomTom" different from "the Linux kernel"? It is GPL, and if TomTom did some modifications, that would have to be made public. I can't imagine MS as defender of the GPL ;-)
I haven't seen pigs flying past my window recently.

Wow

jengelh — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 19:22:25 +0000

If it only were that they sued for a GPL-incompliant component ;-)

451 Group: Microsoft suing TomTom, not Linux, not open source

flewellyn — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 19:12:16 +0000

Yes, but what if this SNARK is a BOOJUM?

451 Group: Microsoft suing TomTom, not Linux, not open source

dkite — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 19:00:21 +0000

Of course, this is good news in a way.

Failing companies sue for market advantage.

Derek

Wow

jd — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:28:13 +0000

Well, there's also the issue of mission-creep. Microsoft is presumably wanting something narrow enough to avoid scrutiny, but all they need to do is later "discover" that the implementation aspect at stake is in the generic kernel and it becomes about the generic kernel.

Then there's always the risk-o-phobia aspect. If TomTom's implementation is "legally risky", then Microsoft's marketing people need only point out that Red Hat and Ubuntu "could be legally risky" without ever having to attack Linux per-se. Just an implementation. One at a time.

In either case, it's the Roman method of conquest - divide and conquer. So long as they can divide the community into the "targeted" and "everyone else" camps, with the "everyone else" merely spectating, they can rinse and repeat as often as they like. By the time such methods are usually spotted, there's not enough left to form a serious opposition.

Of course, Microsoft might not be wanting to kill Linux by this method, but rather wanting to seize the car navigation market by pwning one of the suppliers and then killing off the rest by sheer bulk, the way they're trying to do with anti-viral stuff. Then we would have to ask whether it makes a difference. Can we afford to ignore anti-competitive behaviour merely because it doesn't hurt us - yet?

As Gandalf noted on his journey to Gondor, it is too late to ask for help when the enemy is upon you.

451 Group: Microsoft suing TomTom, not Linux, not open source

ebirdie — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:18:22 +0000

What is the message Microsoft wants to put through to embedded system integrators? Is it possibly "you better come to us what to use as system software for your gadgets or..."?

However, I find it a bit strange tactic since embedded system integrators haven't had pleasant times with FOSS and thus one would think the opposite tactic could play better to win the integrators souls.

451 Group: Microsoft suing TomTom, not Linux, not open source

jd — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:15:24 +0000

I believe the required number of repeats is 3, as per the SNARK protocol specification.

451 Group: Microsoft suing TomTom, not Linux, not open source

linuxjacques — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:07:34 +0000

I don't believe this for a microsecond.

Wow

kh — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:39:46 +0000

Is this not a variation of what SCO argued: We're not suing Linux, just some /commercial/ users of Linux....

451 Group: Microsoft suing TomTom, not Linux, not open source

njd27 — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:27:42 +0000

I love the fact that the valuable Microsoft innovation they're protecting here is the use of the ~ character to paper over the fact that the FAT filesystem has to be able to represent long filenames in the 8.3 scheme.

The headline should be "Microsoft uses patent threat against Linux kernel to try to prevent interoperability".

Wow

kh — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:20:22 +0000

I guess that would make sense to me if 'the Linux kernel as implemented by TomTom' was the only Linux kernel that could access FAT formatted media.

451 Group: Microsoft suing TomTom, not Linux, not open source

wilreichert — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:13:53 +0000

Well I suppose if they repeated it enough times then it must be true right?

451 Group: Microsoft suing TomTom, not Linux, not open source

clugstj — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:05:26 +0000

So, we should feel much better that Microsoft is just saying "We've extorted money from others, now it's TomTom's turn to pay us for these trivial, non-original patents."