Patents and the Penguin 251
In an article entitled Patents and the Penguin, the non-partisan Alexis de Tocqueville Institute observes, "[i]t is not uncommon today for patent fights to erupt even between parties that have engaged in rigorous diligence. By contrast, open source developers and distributors do not engage in patent searches, thus, there is a real possibility we will see a major patent fight involving open source, sooner than later. The article also ominously warns: "IBM will be competing with large Linux-based developers and distributors themselves. As the deployment of Linux increases, it can be expected that IBM will be going head-to-head with its "friends" in the Linux community. It is unquestionable that the biggest irony of all will be when Big Blue resorts to using its war chest of patents against a "friend" in the Linux community." Even Homer Simpson can see this coming.
Open Source Apocalypse (Score:5, Interesting)
FOSS == obvious to skilled practitioner (Score:4, Interesting)
If it is in FOSS software, it is, by definition, obvious to someone who is skilled in the art. Therefore, it is not patentable.
Is this reasonable?
Don't burst my bubble!! (Score:2, Interesting)
The bad company (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Open Source Apocalypse (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Seems less likely (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Seems Unlikely (Score:5, Interesting)
Bottom line - don't sue IBM unless you are sure you haven't infringed on ANY of their IP.
IBM gets it, so far (Score:4, Interesting)
Microsoft, reportedly, is patenting everything in sight. As the IBM portfolio begins to expire they may begin to rival IBM in active software and process patents. The real concern is in the application layer and interoperability protocols. This area is infinitely variable and still offers some hope for profitability, if a company can get a lock on a needed software function. Expect to see hostile action and possible barratry against security protocols, multimedia projects, groupware, web application interfaces and maybe even virtual machine systems. These are all areas where research is done and new ideas are being tried, and probably areas where MS and IBM are filing new software patents. They are certainly areas where MS and IBM hope to make money on software or delivery of unique services. Patents are a way to keep their offerings (legally) unique.
Is ignorance an excuse? (Score:2, Interesting)
The cost of a sufficient patent search would be prohibitive to many OSS teams.
Patents, Penguin and Daemons too! (Score:2, Interesting)
Solution: sue the patent office (Score:5, Interesting)
2. force them to open up their approval process to the public so that these trivial patents won't even get approved as a condition of winning #1.
3. Freedom!
Non Partisan? Really?? (Score:4, Interesting)
Obligatory Jerky Boys Reference (Score:2, Interesting)
Sol: Sue you people for punitive damages that you're giving me.
Lawyer: You want to sue me?
Sol: Sure. Sue everyone!!
IBM DOES sue over patents (Score:1, Interesting)
This wasn't a defensive move. It was a blatant example of IBM wanting to make money.
Fortunatley enough for us, our methods were dissimilar enough to satisfy them.
The next time anyone says that "its a defensive measure" for IBM patenting everything under the sun, you can freely call them an idiot.
Re:Seems less likely (Score:3, Interesting)
IBM hasn't made money by ignoring reality - that is a behavior which we see plenty of here on slashdot, though. The fact is that the world is changing and proprietary legacy software becomes more and more distasteful as linux becomes more and more powerful and runs on more computers. Programers have long embraced portions of assorted BSDs, such as a fellow who I read a comment by not long ago who had yanked the TCP/IP stack from OpenBSD and used it in something he was writing - all very legitimate and desirable from the standpoint of the BSD folks of course. But, many of them never really got into BSD as a lifestyle (that particular poster may have , but I don't know) but Linux is becoming THE THING in all sorts of disparate markets. Can it be long before its portability surpasses netbsd's?
OSS is both carrot and stick and as such we must be careful while wielding it. IBM may be interested in selling services, but they are very interested on selling them on top of Linux.
If there is any reason why IBM might not decide to trample all over Open Source versions of their products which contain IBM patents, it is that they won't feel that the others are any kind of competition. IBM has traditionally not seemed to have spent a lot of time and/or effort on patent litigation except defensively, probably because they invent shit and move on. By the time someone else is capable of making a strong showing of infringing on their patent, they've developed the next big thing.
OSS Patent Orginization (Score:2, Interesting)
Without such a foundation, it will be hard --- if not impossible --- to protect the IP created by OSS projects. The patents created can be licenses (to commercial companies) for the sole purpose of creating a warchest to defend against patent suits and to fund submissions to the patent process.
Obviously, the current patent system is forcing the community in this direction.
It's imparative that we do not fall behind and lose the ability to create.
Re:Could IBM possibly mandate a proprietary compon (Score:2, Interesting)
And Personally, I feel that any large corporation, be it IBM, HP or Microsoft, will do whatever it feels is necessary to protect it's own position.
IBM may be the 'hero of the hour' right now, but I have a nasty feeling that this may be a very insideous form of 'Embrace and Extend'...a practice that may on slashdot accuse Microsoft of carrying out, and yet it may be happening even now, right under our noses.
In the end companies are in business to make money, not friends...
A few questions.. (Score:5, Interesting)
How could a judge award damages for lost revenue when you didn't make any money out of their idea anyway?
Simon.
What if ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What about "the rest of the world" (Score:2, Interesting)
Really, China is going to kick our butt because we're acting like IP will save us, and its really REALLY a case of the emperor's new clothes.
IP doesn't exist. Its a hand-waving exercise. Its saying "here's a great idea, but don't use it!"
If I'm china, I'd say "thanks for pointing out the most novel parts of your software; I'll copy those first".
If the West's pre-eminance can be broken by simply a billion chinamen ignoring our laws, then we've already lost.
Re:I have met the enemy... (Score:3, Interesting)
There's a huge difference. IBM is (currently) trying to "play nice" with the Open Source community, and would probably prefer to not piss them off. Microsoft does not play nicely and apparently doesn't care who they piss off.
Predicting a "patent battle" between Microsoft and the Open Source development community is like predicting terrorist attacks. It's not a matter of "if", it's a matter of "when".
Let's See If I'm Reading This Right (Score:4, Interesting)
So if I'm reading this correctly, AdTI (AKA: Microsoft) is saying IBM is going to wind up turning on the Open Source community. Hmmm, let's see, which is more likely:
1. AdTI sent their empty-headed mouthpieces to the showers, actually hired some economy, psychology, an legal theory research people, did a complete workup on IBM, and have found that IBM's psychological and business strategy makeup is such that it will eventually grow deranged and attempt to kill off its fastest growing consulting division.
2. AdTI (AKA: Microsoft) thought to themselves, "hmmm, if we... er, I mean, Microsoft (wink, wink) try to use our... er, their patents against Linux, we're going to get slapped with an antitrust suit so big it'll make our last series of losses look like a traffic ticket . . . Patents are the only thing that can stop Linux now . . . I know what we'll do, we'll foment conflict. We'll say IBM is going to turn on the Linux community; those hotheaded hackers will turn on IBM just like they've turned on Sun. Then IBM will get all pissed off and go to the patent pimp-hand to try to bring those evil hackers in line. The resulting infighting may or may not kill Linux, but it will at least keep Linux and IBM distracted while we steal a few more years of monopoly profits from the world's businesses and private citizens, and we can use it in the media to claim noone who is using Linux is safe from the scourge of IBM."
Which one do you think is a more realistic scenario?
Even Homer Simpson can see this coming.
Only Homer Simpson would allow himself to be shined on by such a transparent seduction.
how similar (Score:3, Interesting)
A patent would not just affect one person, so the whole thing about not being able to afford to litigate when there are millions of people around the globe that would also be paying license fees doesn't really get down to the heart of the matter.
This is why I think that it's good to have larger organizations involved, at least to some extent; even though a small organization might get hit up or targeted, larger organizations will be affected; this will act as a natural deterrent, discouraging the "targeting the weak" strategy.
Open source is for everyone, so everyone gets to defend it. Right? So if you attack open source, you attack everyone. Not a very good idea, if you asked me. I'm not saying it won't happen, but I do think that there are some people who like being paranoid; and there are some people who are just determined to smell that veritable blue cheese on their moustache, being convinced that the entire world smells very awful for some reason.
Is there really anything that can be done about the problem? Perhaps there is, but I know for a fact that there will be people who will make the whole thing seem a lot worse than it really is, there will be people who will exaggerate and point fingers for political purposes. I think that a lot of the percieved problem is coming from the very people who are proclaiming that there is a problem.
We need to look at what can be done, and then do it. POSIX compliance is a good thing. Complying with the Open Group's specs are a good thing. Stick with the tried and true, don't get too fancy. Cooperation, cooperation and faith are the most important things. Keep a positive attitude, and do everything you can to prevent, and solve the problem. I don't see how whining, moaning, complaining, or pontificating are going to do anything to make the situation any better. Speaking of which...
Re:Open Source Apocalypse (Score:5, Interesting)
They are unreasonably biased either because of the funding they receive from microsoft (which I beleive funded that last paper) or due to outdated views and limited understanding of competition and capatilism as it relates to software.
Sadly, this topic is pertinent but less from IBM and more from Microsoft and their slew of patents surrounding Longhorn. SCO's case will die but MS has figured out that they can beat OS through the legal system rather than through competition.
Re:Open Source Apocalypse (Score:2, Interesting)
It wasn't that Theo pissed them off. What happened was the money was going to a university project (Penn State?), and the were in turn sending it off to other projects, including OpenBSD. What happened was someone discovered that OpenBSD was based in Canada, and the money was yanked because the project was Canandian and not US. Theo can spout off all he wants about the US govt. pulling the money because of his "outspoken criticism"; but I'd be your car note that the response from the Pentagon was more along the lines of "Theo who?"
Software Patents are NOT productive (Score:2, Interesting)
I write software for a living. My goal is to accomplish something in a product that is useful to my customers. Now, if I independently develop a technique that someone else has patented, does that make me liable for patent infringement?
I do know something of the current state of thinking in the legal system and it rather supports the stance of Linus and the OSS community: ignore software patents. The reason is quite simple: if it can be shown that you were aware of the patent, whether or not you actually had input from it while developing infringing code, it is quite likely that you will be found against in court (disclaimer: IANAL [thank GOD!]). Therefore, the worst thing you can do is to actively look for any patents that you might infringe upon. In fact, the more knowledgable you are about software patents, the less code you can actually write because of the off-chance that you might accidentally re-develop an idea that has already been patented!
This whole thing stinks! Patents were originally proposed as a idea to promote innovation. Instead, they are now stifling it. Where would we be if the creators of the FFT algorithm (Cooley-Tukey, I believe?) had been able to patent it when it was developed? Not only that, IIRC there was quite a bit of discussion about prior art even when they published, so the entire mess could have been tied up in court for 10's of years rather than being used as extensively as it was.
As for this particular article about IBM being a threat with their patent portfolio: pure FUD! IBM has primarily used their patent portfolio as a defensive tool.
I think Linux has far more to fear from Microsoft, who recently has been patenting everything in site. As has been brought up elsewhere here, Alexis de Tocqueville Institute has a history with Microsoft. This looks like yet one more attempt to attack the legitimacy of Linux while ignoring the shady parts of Windows' and Offices' pasts! Microsoft's stand on IP has a rather hypocritical ring to it when measured against their shenanigans with Stac, Burst, et al. They respect nobody else's IP, but proclaim loudly how their's must be respected!
Statutory Invention Registration already available (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:IBM (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not that they're evil, just that corporations are psychopaths. [centennialcollege.ca] (Their conclusion is debatable, but worth thinking about.)
Re:Seems less likely (Score:3, Interesting)
For all those who shun "intellectual property" (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Open Patents (Score:3, Interesting)
This term is known as Mutual Assured Destruction or MAD.
Here [wikipedia.org] is the Wikepedia entry for it. It's a premise in most game theory decisions as well, in some respects the Prisoner's Dilemma can be said to be based on it.
this is what Patents have de-volved into. One files patents for the sole purpose of assuring destruction of litigating party. If I patent something insanely stupid, like the use of color in word processing, then I can always use it to bash you if you sue me for something of actual merit. I can tie the court system up long enough to make it completely destructive to you. Thus, you are deterred from doing anything about my wholesale intellectual property theft.
Welcome to your future.
Re:Seems less likely (Score:4, Interesting)
Basically what this means is that by distributing code as GPL, IBM has promissed to abide by the license, and people are legitimately allowed to claim the right to use the GPL conditions on their derived works. (I don't know the CPL, but similar conditions may apply. It does qualify as a free license.)
CAUTION: IANAL. Use the above opinion with caution.
Will happen? Yes, Honnest mistake? No (Score:1, Interesting)
Patents are filed based on what is likely to be created instead of what has already been created.
Invetors had to have a working prototype before getting a patent once apon a time. Today invetors get patents out of pure speculation.
The problem is that the patent insures the inventor will make money on the idea reguardless of who actually builds it.
"There is nothing new under the sun"
Chances are any patented item was forseen at least 5 years prior in some "Technology of tomarow" artical.
(Everybody dose one every year)
Also there is usually chatter by people who use the technology about the "next logical step".
Everyone in E-Commerce was waiting for the day when "one click shopping" would be safe before implementing it. Security conserns were keeping it from happening.
Once security was reliable enough it would be the next logical step. But Amazon patented it BEFORE it was safe. No prior are not becouse it was a new novile idea or even that Amazon jumped some technological barreor but becouse it wasn't safe and Amazon didn't change that.
TiVO: The hard disk design was a novile and unique invention that deserves a patent.
The only issue here for me is that this dosen't mean TiVO should have a patent on the idea of a PVR but simply the WAY they do it in the TiVO. Everyone else will need to do it a diffrent way.
That is how it will happen in open source.
Remeber the race to get a jurnaling file system into Linux? What if one of those projects filed a patent on the idea? And what if that was one of the projects that never produced any results?
They have the rights to it for no other reason that they clammed it first.
Patents are the "First Post" of intelectal property. It's not the first person with a new idea or the first person with a new way to do something but the first person to stake a clame.