The Linux Kernel and Software Patents 629
batsman writes "The Linux VM system programmers are discussing the software patents that could block further development of important features. Alan Cox brings up several SGI patents covering the techniques they were considering, and Daniel Phillips has found some patents that affect features already present in Linux. Linus Torvalds thinks they should ignore these patents and pretend they don't exist until they cause troubles. How long before kernel developers are sued for patent infringement?"
Kernel developers don't have to worry (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Clean Room (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Kernel developers don't have to worry (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Independent discovery? (Score:1, Informative)
If two people independently invent the same thing at the same time, the one who gets to the patent office first "wins".
Patents were not restricted to machines! (Score:5, Informative)
Funny, the Constitution [archives.gov] says (Art. I, Sect. 8)
There is nothing there that says the "discovery" needs to be a machine and not an algorithm.Thomas Jefferson thought patents should be just for machines, but he was not the king of the U.S., and others thought differently. The Patent Act of 1793 [publicknowledge.org] states that the inventor of
is entitled to a patent. Note that "arts," not just machines, are entitled to patents. The 1952 Patent Act revised this to read,Again, not just machines, but processes were elegible according to the letter of the law to be patented. Algorithms and business plans seem to me to be processes and hence, are not automatically excluded from the wording of the historical patent laws.
Not Just a Good Idea, but the Law (Score:4, Informative)
Here's how it works: if you read a patent and decide it doesn't apply, and then you get sued and lose, your liability automatically triples because you violated it flagrantly. If you didn't read it, the violation was incidental. Many big companies have policies forbidding their engineering staff from reading patents, for just that reason.
(Those of you who notice a similarity with the Catholic notion of mortal and venal sins may feel smug.)
Re:Keeping things equal (Score:2, Informative)
If a leatherworker makes a copy of your wallet, did he steal it?
If your wallet was distinctive, yes. Like if I were to make a wallet that said "Bad Motherfucker" on it, Jules might be able to sue me, assuming he didn't cause any "Great vengeance and furious anger" rain down upon me in a frenzy of bullets from that
If you copy a book without permission, you have violated copyright law. But you haven't stolen anything. The copy of the book you have didn't exist before so it is impossible to have stolen it from anyone.
The theft is of potential revenue. There is a clause in copyright that suggests that allows copies for fair use (noncommercial). So if you copy a book and distribute it, you're giving something to people who might have otherwise bought it. So you're stealing revenue.
You seem to think that MS can sue someone because they made a product that looks like a MS product.
Yes, they can under CURRENT legal precedent. This is called "look-and-feel," and many companies have sued over this (I recall Adobe Photoshoip or something similar).
If I make a glove with five fingers, did I steal from someone?
No, that is covered under prior art if you're trying to patent it. That is an IDEA, and hence not copyrightable. If the world only consisted of mittens, then yes, you could.
You need to understand a few concepts of current law:
1. Ideas are patentable, devices are patentable, specific works are copyrightable if they convey a specific message. An idea or concept can not be copyrighted. A poem can not be patented.
2. Copying is stealing in the eyes of the courts. Exceptions include academic work, small excerpts, personal use, and situations in which no possible damage can occur.
3. For good or bad, fairly general ideas can be patented now as far as computers are concerned. Amazon's "1-click" business model IS patented, as are the "look-and-feel" of most major programs. The latter is tough to enforce, but it can be done.
You may not like any of the above, but it's how it is. You may want to differentiate what you would like to happen from what actually does
Patents certainly did not help the Wright Brothers (Score:3, Informative)
-Hope