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)
Re:Open Source Apocalypse (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Open Source Apocalypse (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, until Theo pi##ed them off, the Air Force and Darpa were sending money to OpenBSD. Who's to say that they haven't since forked it to "DarpaBSD" and moved on?
The military does have programmers who know their stuff, and they can hire IBM as a contractor doing 'work for hire' that legally belongs to the U.S. Government, complete with NDAs & whiterooms.
They also have a secrecy == security mindset in many areas, so they may choose not to release their work. Even GPL software could dissapear into the system like this, since they would all be working under the umbrella of the U.S. Government and so therefore the work could be widely used in binary but never "distributed."
In that case, patent cases or other IP disputes would probably not be made public, as in order to make a case the military work would have to be published. And unless they publish their work (like SELinux), nobody else would really know enough about it to sue them. Given that Microsoft et.al. has already complained about the unfair competition provided by SELinux, I think publishing complete operating systems or adaptations of OSS operating systems would be rare.
Anyway - just a thought.
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 s
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.
Re:A few questions.. (Score:2, Insightful)
the same way that the RIAA plans to sue people that have copies of albums that they didn't buy
Re:Open Source Apocalypse (Score:2)
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:4, Insightful)
That is what I fear. The current system rewards corporations for revealing patents after a technology has become pervasive. Who's to say Microsoft can't sit on some patents and then pull the rabbit out of the hat when they feel the time is right.
Re:Open Source Apocalypse (Score:5, Insightful)
They will try, they kinda suggested it also in memos that were leaked (?)
In the end.. IBM and Novell seem to have more to gain from a freely developed Linux then one that is bogged down my MS and their IP. I'm pretty sure that among them they have enough material to make MS think twice before actually trying it themselves (as opposed as through a proxy as they are doing right now)
Seems less likely (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Seems less likely (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Seems less likely (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to mention that if the patents cover anything they've distributed under the GPL then they're going to be in direct contridiction of:
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
So the only GPL products they could use their patents against are those that don't incorporate any source code from IBM - and even then the person distributing them could just link them against something IBM distributed to them and be safe.
Re:Seems less likely (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Seems less likely (Score:4, Insightful)
IBM distributes just about EVERY GPL Free Software application there is. They distribute full gnu/linux operating systems. That includes the kernel, the libraries, the applications etc. Most gnu/linux distros try to package every GPL software that's out there and IBM distributes more than one distro.
If IBM had any patents which could be applicable to ANY GPL software, that's now in the past.
Re:Seems less likely (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
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 desi
Re:Seems less likely (Score:2)
In short, IBM's not on top because they want to sell you ways to do what they want you to do. They're on top because they sell you ways to do what you want to do. Contrast this with Microsoft's products, which constantly try to be smarter than the user and dictate to him how he is to use his computer and what he is to do with it.
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?
Re:FOSS == obvious to skilled practitioner (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:FOSS == obvious to skilled practitioner (Score:2)
Re:FOSS == obvious to skilled practitioner (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it has nothing to do with obviousness: it's about novelty. Quite simply, if the (so called) patented invention is already disclosed to the public, then a patent cannot be obtained for it.
In other words, the mere fact of committing code to a CVS repository already discloses it and thus whether it is obvious or not (i.e. "inventive") is irrelevant: no one can now patent it.
There are further complexities once you did deeper, but that's the basic rule.
IBM (Score:5, Insightful)
You underestimate the power... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:IBM (Score:2)
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:IBM (Score:3)
Seems Unlikely (Score:5, Informative)
IBM is the owner of a vast number of patents which provide substantial revenue for the company, however, the vast majosrity of these are hardware patents, and, even here IBM has been reluctant to get involved in litigation except fot the most blatent violations.
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.
Re:Seems Unlikely (Score:5, Informative)
For products in the IT field that practice an IBM patent, the royalty rate follows the guideline of one percent of the selling price of that product. If more than one patent is practiced in a product, the maximum rate is five percent of the selling price of that product.
GPL software is generally downloadable for $0, thus $0 royalties. I guess IBM could demand a percentage of the price of boxed software sold in stores. Oooooo, vewy vewy scawy. Real wrath-of-God stuff here guys! Fire and brimstone falling from the sky, dogs and cats living together!
So the good-old Alexis de Tocqueville Institute has declared IBM is about to sue its Linux friends into oblivion. Riiiiiight.
Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of FUD!
-
IBM disapproves software patients ???? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Seems Unlikely (Score:2)
Re:Seems Unlikely (Score:5, Informative)
My own introduction to the realities of the patent system came in the 1980s, when my client, Sun Microsystems--then a small company--was accused by IBM of patent infringement. Threatening a massive lawsuit, IBM demanded a meeting to present its claims. Fourteen IBM lawyers and their assistants, all clad in the requisite dark blue suits, crowded into the largest conference room Sun had.
The chief blue suit orchestrated the presentation of the seven patents IBM claimed were infringed, the most prominent of which was IBM's notorious "fat lines" patent: To turn a thin line on a computer screen into a broad line, you go up and down an equal distance from the ends of the thin line and then connect the four points. You probably learned this technique for turning a line into a rectangle in seventh-grade geometry, and, doubtless, you believe it was devised by Euclid or some such 3,000-year-old thinker. Not according to the examiners of the USPTO, who awarded IBM a patent on the process. After IBM's presentation, our turn came. As the Big Blue crew looked on (without a flicker of emotion), my colleagues--all of whom had both engineering and law degrees--took to the whiteboard with markers, methodically illustrating, dissecting, and demolishing IBM's claims. We used phrases like: "You must be kidding," and "You ought to be ashamed." But the IBM team showed no emotion, save outright indifference. Confidently, we proclaimed our conclusion: Only one of the seven IBM patents would be deemed valid by a court, and no rational court would find that Sun's technology infringed even that one.
An awkward silence ensued. The blue suits did not even confer among themselves. They just sat there, stonelike. Finally, the chief suit responded. "OK," he said, "maybe you don't infringe these seven patents. But we have 10,000 U.S. patents. Do you really want us to go back to Armonk [IBM headquarters in New York] and find seven patents you do infringe? Or do you want to make this easy and just pay us $20 million?"
Don't burst my bubble!! (Score:2, Interesting)
What about "the rest of the world" (Score:4, Insightful)
The power of open source lies in the fact that no one outside of western nations could give a rat's ass over who has what patents. If the west isn't careful they're going to sue themeselves into second place in the world economy......
Re:What about "the rest of the world" (Score:3, Insightful)
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
B. S. (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM will be going head to head with Linux why? IBM makes money consulting and selling hardware. They say, "We have this great mainframe for $200,000 that runs Linux. It's fast, scalable and dependable." That is of great value to them. OS2 was no cash cow. That's why they've moved in the direction they have. That's why they're spending so much money to help develop Linux - it is GOOD for them.
Re:B. S. (Score:2)
How soon they forget.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How soon they forget.... (Score:2, Funny)
Come again? (Score:2, Redundant)
Do you mean this very non-partisan intitute [wired.com]?
FUD, plain and simple.
Cooper
--
I don't need a pass to pass this pass!
- Groo The Wanderer -
Re:Come again? (Score:5, Informative)
A Microsoft spokesman confirmed that Microsoft provides funding to the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution.
Microsoft did not respond to requests for comment on whether the company directly sponsored the debate paper. De Tocqueville Institute president Ken Brown and chairman Gregory Fossedal refused to comment on whether Microsoft sponsored the report.
Just one more independant review - my ass.
Yep, pure a Microsoft confusion of issues. (Score:2)
In a widely quoted study, Baruch Lev of the Brookings Institution reported that in 1982, 62% of the market value of companies in the S & P 500 Index could b
Open Patents (Score:4, Insightful)
Then, call them "Open patents." They are free for ANYBODY to use AS LONG AS they do not file any patent suits against open-source projects. This would create an interesting arms race. "We will use yours, but then you get to use ours. If you start a fight, we take our ball and go home." Of course, for this to work, there has to be a substantial body of open patents...
1, 2, 3 Plan (Score:4, Informative)
The plan should be:
1) Like you said, F/OSS organizations should file for their own patents that are freely available for all to use. I am unsure how this will be sponsored though since filing for a patent is nontrivially expensive.
2) Support PubPat [pubpat.org] in looking for prior art for the worse offending patents against free / open source software, and other patents that are harmful to society. A story [groklaw.net] from Groklaw [groklaw.net] about PubPat.
3) Try to get patent reform done including disallowing software patents, and have more patent examiners hired with actual experience so they can sniff out bogus claims.
Re:Open Patents (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Open Patents (Score:4, Informative)
Defending against a lawsuit initiated by someone else would cost money no matter what, even if the OSS files for patents, but if they did it would give them more leverage. Defending your own patents is entirely optional.
Re:Open Patents (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Open Patents (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Open Patents (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Open Patents (Score:4, Insightful)
This would be sort of like the USA/USSR arms race. If you shoot me, I shoot back and we both die.
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 w
Re:Open Patents (Score:3, Insightful)
My conclusion therefore is that OSS developers should be applying for patents. These patents could be used in a defensive manner if challenged by a proprietary, closed source developer (company).
Re:Open Patents (Score:2)
Re:Open Patents (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Open Patents (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Open Patents (Score:2)
Statutory Invention Registration already available (Score:3, Interesting)
This assertion is pretty stupid because of the GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
IIRC this wonderful institute has written some very controversial studies and analysis for Microsoft and other proprietary interest before. They can hardly be called neutral or non-partisan.
--
Andre
Remember Caldera (Score:2)
-MDL
Homer can't see this... (Score:5, Funny)
Homer Simpson CANNOT see this coming. However, given a half hour, he could accidentally trap the entire IBM legal department in some underground cave (or perhaps Moe's), find an old patent in his attic registered by his great grandfather* in 1901 for a "computing device", show up to court and take IBM to the cleaners for, oh let's just say $3 Billion, and then sign over the check to Mr. Burns in return for a week off and a couple of donuts.
*OK, we all know Lisa forged the 1901 patent, but as long as it works in court we're fine.
Last card in the deck (Score:5, Insightful)
On the flip side there are small companies making a name - but most grass roots efforts can defeat them.
IBM is no where near as close to closing its doors as Sun, so I don't know why everybody is worried about IBM.
Re:Last card in the deck (Score:2)
I'm willing to give them support for now. Nevertheless, you know what they say about the price of freedom...
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.
Choice? (Score:2)
Funded by Microsoft (Score:5, Informative)
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/06/04/22824
sigh...spelling error in first sentence. (Score:2)
Now, if "hobby" were an adjective (even in a term like "hobby market," "hobby" is still not an adjective--it's a modifying noun), then "hobbiest" would mean the object you're describing is hobbier than anything else. But hobby is not an adjective. It is a noun. The word the author was looking for is a word for a person who engages in a hobby: "hobbyist."
Second, even if the quoted party (Mr. McOrmond) spelled it th
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!
IBM is in the hardware business (Score:4, Insightful)
How does this junk make the front page? (Score:5, Insightful)
On the IBM point, IBM already has a giant patent portfolio. GIANT.
The difference with IBM is while they'll make money on their portfolio, they are not a dying company who'es only source of revenue are patents. They've played exceeding well with the linux world, have expressed their dislike of patents in the past, and distribute Linux so have agreed to the GPL.
Even Home Simpson could see this is a bunch of BS.
Non Partisan? Really?? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Non Partisan? Really?? (Score:3, Funny)
1. Why Longhorn promotes goodness in the world.
2. Why the Linux penguin is a symbol of a secret cult.
3. Hitler's Diaries, the hidden chapter on why open source is good for fascism.
4. Linus Torvalds spelled backwards means "Horrible Disease" in Swahili.
5. Why only a pinko commie who hates America and freedom would use Linux.
6. The Finnish conspiracy.
7. How the Olympics banned Linux.
8. How Al-Queda can strike all the companies in the world yo
The Homer? (Score:3, Funny)
Misleading article: Editors asleep at the wheel (Score:2, Redundant)
Not in a hundred years. Read the previous fud that they published about Linux. You particulary want to read the articles by Kenneth P. Brown.
In fact, I see this as nothing but an attempt to divide the Linux community. Linux is not a zero-sum game. It has already proven that we can all win, some may win more than others, but both users and companies are better off because of its existence.
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!!
Could IBM possibly mandate a proprietary component (Score:2, Insightful)
Everyone is discounting IBM's ability to derail and/or subsume F/OSS by virtue of the GPL (that is, they won't be able to because the GPL requires that they provide the source for their contributions to the kernel). The problem I see with this is that they have the ability, due to their market presence, to incorporate a proprietary component into their distributions -- possibly protected by patents -- that is subsequently shoved down the throats of businesses they service.
In other words, they definitely h
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...
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 d
Turing and (!) embryology (Score:2)
Re:Turing and (!) embryology (Score:2)
Prevention is Obvious (Score:2, Funny)
When you announce your latest addition to Linux, don't say "I had a great new idea!". Say "It certainly is obvious that this was needed."
"Conservative think tank" (Score:2)
I personally read the article as an attack on the Open Source community on the basis of its being sort of leftish or socialistic--much like Darl McBride's claim that the GPL is unconstitutional--but a much cleverer, well-reasoned, subtle attack than Darl's.
I have met the enemy... (Score:2)
...and his name is Microsoft.
I cannot imagine IBM going after Open Source developers for patent infringement. Like other people on this thread have mentioned, it's just not in IBM's best interest, doesn't fit with their business model, etc. But Microsoft...
Microsoft has claimed repeatedly that their patent portfolio is "purely defensive". This is also the message spread internally to get uncooperative engineers to contribute to patent applications. At least, that was my experience.
The real question is: A
Re:I have met the enemy... (Score:2)
Actually, I think there's enough money at stake that IBM will start doing this eventually. They're not going to lose any developer support. There's always a fresh batch of naive kids in college willing to code for free.
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".
Re:I have met the enemy... (Score:2)
Patent searches? (Score:2)
Yet another "think tank" with it's head up their collective arse.
Source Collection (Score:2)
Never know when it might dissapear due to a lawsuit..
What if ... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Alexis de Tocqueville ... AGAIN (Score:5, Insightful)
The issue if patents and FLOSS software is real, and the way things are going these days, I think we're headed for some real problems in the not too distant future. However, I strongly suspect the problem is not going to come from IBM or other Open Source "friends". (They have no interest in "crushing" open source as a competitor.) It's going to come from either deep pockets like MS, with an ax to grind, or from more small-operators like SCO or other "Intellectual Property Houses", looking to cash in on the Wave.
Software patents are a real issue, but the problem is not isolated in any way to the FLOSS development model. Nor should it be a reason to shy away from using, or developing FLOSS software.
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...
Flawed article (Score:3, Insightful)
Typically you perform patent searches on stuff you intend to file and that is often after the R&D has been done. This is where due diligence kicks in to make sure you are claiming a novel invention.
I can't emphasize enough how utterly insane it would be to expect engineers to search for patent prior art before writing their own creative code. It's hard enough to do this w.r.t. a specific invention for exampel looking for prior art as it relates to LZW or the latest JPEG claims. However with the scope of things your average engineer touches to produce anything of reasonable complexity it would be impossible to perform a thorough search or even know all the areas you should be searching in.
Let's not let these ignorant fools dictate or change the expectation of what engineering is about and lets not allow them to redefine what due dilligence is.
Public Domain (Score:3, Informative)
So remember that the next time you pick up a cold drink. It is very likely that whatever Patent or Copyright was on that cold drink is now in the PD. (Not that that means that they are going to rush out and post exactly what is in their drink or how they make it. Nor does it mean that you can call it "Coke". Because that term is a Trademark - which follows a different set of rules. But the original patents, if any, are retired to the PD.)
So if you want to defeat the rush of software patents - file your patents into the PD. Then if the companies want to say anything they have to first get it back out of the PD. Which is just as hard to do as it is to defend their patents.
On IBM:
I do not think that it would be in IBM's best interest to sue anyone over a patent issue. First, there would be the backlash of everyone else who holds a patent who would then turn around and sue IBM. Second, IBM just got out from under the last of the government's scrutiny from the antitrust case. Last, it would cause a rise in anti-IBM sentiment which would cause software to be written with clauses which states anyone but IBM could use the software. Just like some software used to have the anti-Microsoft clause in it.
Re:Is this some kind of joke? (Score:2, Funny)