Munich's Linux Migration Raises EU Patent Issues 164
J ROC writes "Techweb has a story about the German city of Munich's Windows-to-Linux migration. It appears the move to replace 14,000 Windows desktops with Linux has hit a bump. Green Party alderman Jens Muehlhaus, who is a supporter of open-source software, has petitioned the mayor to examine the status of software patents in the European Community. The issue involves a proposed directive on software patents that is being considered by various European governments. Muehlhaus fears that a patent owner could issue a cease-and-desist order against Munich, thus hurting the operation of various city departments."
So would MS software be immune? (Score:4, Interesting)
This idea is GENIUS!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So would MS software be immune? (Score:3, Interesting)
In fact, as the Eolas case has showed us, Microsoft was ready to make significant changes to IE.
If Munich (or anyone) was depending on the way IE worked with plugins would find he would have to redo everything.
All because of a stupid patent.
A worst scenario (one more probable to have an impact on Munich) is not to difficult to imagine.
I don't see how they are more protected with MS (or any corporation) against patents.
Should have been obvious from the EU directive (Score:5, Interesting)
EU software patent directive makes Munich's Unix migration difficult.
The moment Germany caved on Software Patents [ffii.org] they ensured that free software would require licenses simply to continue to exist and be compatible with any commercial software.
Hence, any government (e.g. Munich) hoping to use open source or free software will eventually be unable to do so and still retain compatibility with common commercial software. It's a foregone conclusion.
Case in point: Samba. It's only a matter of months before Microsoft uses patents to kill Samba and all similar communications compatibility with Open Source software. How will this affect Munich?
I really do hope this brings the German delegation to the EU back to their senses, but I fear it's too late. By the way, the ffii site seems to be down. Anyone know why?
Re:So would MS software be immune? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's concerning to me how many people may be using illegal software from closed souorce vendors who stole source code from other projects. I would hate to build a business on a software package only to later have the vendor discontinue support because he got caught for having illegally stolen copyrighted software and incorporated it in his work.
With open source, I can feel pretty safe - based on the many eyes who see the check-in comments, someone would complain if they saw their stolen code. With proprietary software, I probably wouldn't even have a way of knowing until my vendor gets shut down.
Microsoft make no such guarantee (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I didn't know that proprietary software was imu (Score:3, Interesting)
In many European countries the situation is somewhat better than in the US as the loosing part in a trial pays the legal fees for both parties. That might make it less tempting to make bogus patent claims.
Re:Contracts and commercial law (Score:1, Interesting)
And it might help stop submarining (Score:4, Interesting)
The danger of course is that they'll think for 3 seconds only, and conclude that they need proprietary software instead of free, since its manufacturer then picks up any liability for royalties.
In contrast, if they could be made to think for just a little bit longer, they might realize that patents would only a problem in this case if they remained hidden underwater and surfaced later when profits were smelled. That would be easy for a government agency to counteract in advance, since politicians are singularly well placed to force patent holders to register claims by a specific date to assist in government planning. This would flush submarines up very nicely.
Submarining is truly the main evil with patents, since it prevents people from planning ahead to avoid liabilities, as well as feeding the parasitic squatter instead of the inventors. If patent holders lost the ability to claim royalties when they remained hidden, much of the problem could be averted.
Sorry, proprietary tech end-users can get sued (Score:5, Interesting)
right - I wouldn't call it a bump. (Score:3, Interesting)
Today there was a Mozilla vulnerability thing and I clicked on the "proof of concept" and my X server almost locked up and I had to ssh in from another machine to kill it. "As if" someone wouldn't notice there was something wrong.
Now, this.
Where does one go to get an objective opinion of things. You know?
It just ain't right. People need to chill out, man... life ain't that grim!
20 years later ... (Score:1, Interesting)
because you can't re-patent (or shouldn't be
able too) after the patent has run out
so after one hundred and some odd years of
patenting, there is definitely alot of good ideas
around you can implement for free.
me thinks if law firms are having a blast, then
detective agencies for patents must have an equal
good market!
keep patenting, make it free!