Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Business Patents

Patents and User Protection In OSS 70

Posted by Zonk from the keeping-things-on-the-up-and-up dept.
missing_myself writes "Linux.com has nice summary on 'How major distributions are dealing with potential violations of patents and trademarks, cryptography, packaging proprietary software and consequential damages' from Bruce Byfield (a journalist from OSTG)." From the article: "Slowly, some commercial distributions are taking a different route. In the last few years, indemnification has become an increasingly important issue in FOSS communities, largely because of the SCO-IBM case. Claiming ownership of Unix, SCO alleges that IBM has allowed copyrighted code to pass from System V Unix to GNU/Linux. Although no evidence has been released and the trial is not scheduled until February 26, 2007, the issues in the case have made both commercial and community FOSS participants reevaluate their practices."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Patents and User Protection In OSS More

Patents and User Protection In OSS

Comments Filter:

  • Does that mean linux will become like windows? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ATeamMrT ( 935933 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @04:29PM (#14197257)
    Linux.com has nice summary on 'How major distributions are dealing with potential violations of patents and trademarks, cryptography, packaging proprietary software and consequential damages

    I know windows won't let me use the OS in every way I want. For example, they have DRM that is enforced, DVD players under windows can lock you into a region. A friend had a linux laptop that was not locked into any region.

    Is Linux going to start doing the same thing as windows? Are the major distros worried about being sued?

    There are way too many lawyers in the USA. I bet if someone did a study, they would find just about everyone will be sued at least once in their life. Too bad it is not like the old days of PC computers when software companies made good money and left users alone. But ever since software companies stopped selling software and started selling services, they now are going after users. I guess selling software once for $50 is not as profitable as activating software on a monthly fee of $12.95. Take the RPG of the 80's and compare them to the games of today. :( If they had open networks, it would be like the 80's, but companies see a way of making more money.

    • Re:Does that mean linux will become like windows? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by kebes ( 861706 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @04:42PM (#14197375) Journal
      But ever since software companies stopped selling software and started selling services, they now are going after users.

      It's entirely possible that I'm not understanding what you're getting at... but I see things as being quite the opposite as you. As I see it, it's because software companies won't give up the sell product business model that we have all these problems. If the software companies would stop trying to charge me for the zero-cost replication of their product, and would instead charge me for service, that would be fine. If they offer bad service, I can cancel my subscription, stop getting support, and still use the product (at my own risk!). If I'm in a jam, I can pay for service, in effect paying for them to actually do something.

      This seems to work (to varying extents) for some OSS software vendors. I can use Mandriva, but if I want support, or faster downloads of newest products, I can pay for those services. I have no problem paying for access to enhanced services. I also see nothing wrong for charging users to play online games (servers and electricity cost money). I'm not convinced that charging me $50 everytime I want to install a copy of something is equally valid.

      Frankly it's much easier, as a user, to stop being bothered by a company when they are service-based, since you can just cancel your subscription. It's annoying to have to deal with copy-protection and DRM on products that you "bought" years ago.
    • What needs to happen here is that OSS projects need to start filing patents. They can include the right to use the patents in the license (GPL or what ever else, I know there are a lot of them) for the software. If the OSS project holds the patents, then they don't have to worry about being sued. I think this would be really good, since the best parts of Win2K, Win2003, and WinXP are Unix ripoffs - ipconfig anyone?

      2 cents,

      Queen B

      • Re:OpenSource Patents (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        That would only work for big companies (Red Hat, etc.)... and those companies already have patent portfolios to protect themselves with (and as leverage). However, the main problem for most OSS projects is money. Unlike copyright (with free registration), where the GPL can exploit the system to protect OSS, patents are expensive. It takes money to file patents, and it takes (lots of) money to protect your patents.

      • Re:OpenSource Patents (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Dan Ost ( 415913 )
        Getting patents isn't required as long as they publish their project so that it can be used as prior art against anyone who might come later with an attempt to patent what the OSS project has already done.

        Please correct me if I'm mistaken.
    • Is Linux going to start doing the same thing as windows? Are the major distros worried about being sued?
      major distros don't tend to distribute this dvd decoding software for exactly this reason it tends to be obtained from user run repositries.

    • There are way too many lawyers in the USA.

      Are you kidding? The US has a dangerously small number of lawyers. We need more; many more.
    • I know windows won't let me use the OS in every way I want. For example, they have DRM that is enforced, DVD players under windows can lock you into a region. A friend had a linux laptop that was not locked into any region.
      Umm... I use VLC under both Windows and Linux. It ignores region-locking (the region is not set on my DVD drive). The OS does not enforce DRM, applications do. (At least, until "trusted computing" is reality.)

    • But ever since software companies stopped selling software and started selling services, they now are going after users. I guess selling software once for $50 is not as profitable as activating software on a monthly fee of $12.95. Take the RPG of the 80's and compare them to the games of today.

      I remember downloading Space Quest Series off the BBS. They usually had a check (what's on page xx of the manual) to validate the purchase. Nothing new here, though the use of computers has massively increased an

  • still theoretical (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    TFA says:

    To date, no patent claim has ever been upheld against FOSS, and no individual or corporation has needed indemnification yet.

    I think that claim is correct. I don't know of any successful claims against major FOSS projects (does anyone have a reference one way or the other, either showing exhaustively that all cases have been fruitless, or showing counter-examples, where claims were upheld?). Overall it seems somewhat strange to be building in indemnification for something that is still, essent
    • building in indemnification for something that is still, essentially, theoretical. Isn't that like taking out insurance against alien attack?

      All insurance is based on something that's theoretical - it just depends on how theoretical.

      Up until last December, a tsunami that could kill a quarter of a million people was only theoretical. Up until last August, a hurricane that would force the evacuation of New Orleans was only theoretical. And up until September 11, 2001, terrorists flying jets into New York sk
    • Overall it seems somewhat strange to be building in indemnification for something that is still, essentially, theoretical. Isn't that like taking out insurance against alien attack?

      Salesman: According to my uncle who is a real whiz with aliens, an alien attack is coming this way.

      Peter Griffin: *thinking to himself* Hmmmm, I too have an uncle. Come in.
    • I guess it's valid since we do have cases where people were sued (even if the claims were false in the end). So having insurance to cover court costs against frivolous lawsuits is indeed necessary. That, however, to me points to a major flaw in the current legal system: we need insurance to continually financially protect us from frivolous lawsuits. It should be easier to avoid baseless accusations, but it isn't.

      I guess my question would be, how do you define "baseless?" Currently, under both federal and s
    • "I think that claim is correct."

      No doubt it is - strictly speaking. It is also meaningless*. I know of several projects that have been sent threatening letters by patent holders, including VLC, Helmut Dersch and a doctor who was writing some patient record keeping/practice management free software. In order for a claim to be upheld against these individuals and communities of free software developers, they would have had to spend the hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars necessary to fight it out in

  • Copyright infringement by IBM? (Score:3, Informative)

    by fatboy ( 6851 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @04:52PM (#14197452)
    Wait a minute. I thought the allegations of copyright infringement by IBM were dropped from the case over a year ago.

    I thought this was now a simple contract disagreement.

    Is there a 4th amended complaint?
  • Software is honestly not patentable, and that is very provable.

    To use an analogy, the decimal system is far easier and more powerful to use than the roman numeral system, but it took 300 years for the change over to happen due to the persistance of the roman numeral elite.

    Galileo wasn't exorinated untill the early 1990's, long after he was dead... allot of good the exorination did him. But it help the catholic church not run off its followers with silly notions of the earth or man being the center of the un

  • Patents Are The Problem Not The Software (Score:5, Interesting)

    by CowboyBob500 ( 580695 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @05:05PM (#14197565) Homepage
    I've said it before [slashdot.org] and I'll say it again - the problem is not the software infringing on patents, it's the fact that software can be patented at all.

    All of this software is legal outside of the US, whether there are US patents held on it or not. It is the US patent system that is at fault here, not the software vendors.

    The US needs to get its act together, or it will find itself falling behind in homegrown new technology as all the innovative companies move (or stay) overseas.

    Bob

    • Re:Patents Are The Problem Not The Software (Score:5, Insightful)

      by hyc ( 241590 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @06:26PM (#14198164) Homepage Journal
      Indeed. Setting up defense funds for indemnification isn't going to solve the problem. While the patent system itself is broken and needs to be fixed, a better short term use of those funds would be to throw it into resources to review and challenge as many patents as possible. This needs to be a two-pronged attack - one, to sift through all of the published applications and challenge them before they get issued, and two, to sift through existing patents that clearly should have failed on whatever grounds.

      Anybody can file an anonymous protest against a patent application before it issues, so all it takes is assigning people to read the apps and make the challenges. Companies taking out "defensive patents" are missing the point, filing for new junk patents to defend against other junk patents only makes the problem worse. Those patent lawyers ought to be earning their money invalidating junk patents, not filing new ones.
    • Agreed. And I fear we may all pay a kind of "US lawyers' tax" for a law that threatens me in no way... I mean, as long as those delicate lobbies in Brussel, Stasbourg or Paris do not corrupt enough MPs.
  • Although I definitely need to brush up on my patent law, this is just getting out of hand. Does SCO really expect to make a difference here? I mean, just the court costs of suing everyone who makes or uses *nix will outweight any gain. Also, they are giving themselves the kiss of death when it comes to people who actually want to use the software they claim is theirs.

    It's almost comical, watching someone try to beat a mountain (linux) with a stick, but sad too. When will sense prevail?
  • According to the article, some OSS vendors are indemnifying their customers from patent lawsuits "at their own expense". Imagine how this will all play out. Microsoft has a huge patent portfolio they can use to defend themselves from others who sue them for infringement (cross licensing, mutual assured destruction). But Redhat and other OSS vendors, by virtue of the fact that their code is open and shared, do not have such a portfolio. They must instead pay settlements and license fees. In the end, it seems

  • Patent Claims DO Shut Down FOSS (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cheesedog ( 603990 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @05:23PM (#14197719)
    Byfield writes, "no patent claim has ever been upheld against FOSS." This isn't entirely true. I know of at least one open source project that shut down after receiving a cease-and-desist letter from a patent holder, and I'm sure there are many more. Technically, none of these claims have been 'upheld' by a court of law, but I think that stems more from the fact that us poor open-source developers don't have the resources to fight cease-and-desists or other methods of shakedown. Our only option is to fold.

    Now, if the open source patent pools could be used offensively [blogspot.com], or the Independent Invention Defense [blogspot.com] were allowed, we'd probably see some action.

  • Most patents these days are bogus and will be toss out of court if challenged by anyone with even half a brain. And all software patents are doubly bogus. Just ignore these brain dead, moronic things, do what you want, and say a big, "fuck you" to the corps that decided to patents obvious, already in use, even public domain things.

  • You guys just... don't... get... it ! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by pla ( 258480 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @06:15PM (#14198095) Journal
    FOSS does not mean the voluntary contribution of a group of stupid hippies to the business interests of the world.

    Welcome back to the Wild West. He who can code, controls the world. We write code. We use code. End of story - Except...

    Corporate America has a schizophrenic obsession with the code we write and use. On the one hand, they see something for free and want in. On the other, they see an ENORMOUS threat to everything they stand for, and want us all taken out back and shot.


    Well, this time, it doesn't really matter what Corporate America wants. They can play along if they want, but every time they try to play (or buy) the new sheriff in town, they get tarred and feathered and send home crying to mommy that we treated them unfairly. "They broke my pathetically weak DRM! They won't let me root their PCs! Make them play fair, Un'ca Sam!"

    Patents? What do the distros do about it? The "real" distros, by which I mean those that don't have shareholders to answer to, do nothing. And if they buckle, someone else will come along to replace them - Once you know how, it doesn't take much to "roll your own" distro (I say that as someone who has done it... granted, maintaining one, with active users, takes a lot of free time).


    So stop Asking Slashdot what horrors will befall us when the festering patent dungheap hits the cool-breeze-blowing fan of Open Source. Because the fan gets a little dirty, and keeps right on spinning, while those flinging the feces get covered in shit.
    • What about debian that has a seperate non-us mirror for software that's not allowed to distribute in the usa becaues of crypto and patent laws? I'm pretty sure that debian has no shareholders...

      It's nice to see so much optimism in this matter, but I don't see on which you base it. Although corporations have been slow to adapt until now, why couldn't that change in the future. Just see how much they push for software patents in Europe.

      And even if these corporations are slow, they might still do a lot of dama

      • Re:You guys just... don't... get... it ! (Score:4, Interesting)

        by pla ( 258480 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @08:25PM (#14198918) Journal
        What about debian that has a seperate non-us mirror for software that's not allowed to distribute in the usa becaues of crypto and patent laws?

        Exactly my point (if phrased in a somewhat less extremist manner)! As long as a single country (*cough* Vanuatu *cough*), a single state, a single town, a single pair of people, exists that doesn't feel inclined to play ball with those who would lock our culture away from us and charge us just for a peek, no one can tell us "you can't use XOR because Microsoft owns the patent on it". Or rather, they can tell us until they die from exhaustion, but it won't much matter, because this very much counts as a war of attrition, and while corporations and governments may theoretically live forever, real humans - Well, as Doritos says, "Crunch all you want, we'll make more".


        but I don't see on which you base it.

        Simple civil disobedience. The fact that most of us look proudly on the Boston tea party, sympathize with the students at Tiennamen Square, root for Robin Hood, cheer on "DVD Jon" (All "evil lawbreakers" in the opinion of our political leaders and corporate masters)... All those serve as proof enough to me that we will eventually "win". It may take the blood of billions, imprisoned and tortured in secret prisons in the name of profit, but freedom has a way of popping up even in the most oppressive of situations.


        Even the uncertainty about the legal status of oss

        Hmm, I don't think you quite followed my original meaning... The "legal status" doesn't matter one whit in the long term viability of open source.

        For laws to matter, you need (at least) two preconditions...

        One, which I already mentioned, you need a monopoly on laws. The US doesn't have that. The EU doesn't have that. The UN doesn't have that. I really doubt any single nation will ever truly rule the entire human race for long.

        And two: People need to believe in laws for those laws to have any power. Laws very much count as consentual fiction - Take away the "consent" part, and you have nothing but fiction. Case in point, speed limits. Spooky Canadian GPS schemes aside, very few people care much about the posted speed limits. And those who get caught violating once or twice a year pay a pittance of a "sin" tax for the privelage of going faster. Even with so draconian a situation as the "War on (some) Drugs", you have somewhere around a third of the population in open revolt against a set of laws on which the US government (as an aggregate) spends the MAJORITY of its policing budget, yet still fails to do more than waste even more money filling prisons.
      • The purpose [debian.org] of non-US was to bypass certain laws that prevented the export of cryptographic software from the United States.

        Since those laws were nullified after the release of Debian 3.0 (Woody), the repository no longer serves a useful purpose and is now empty.

        The non-US section has nothing to do with patents. Debian's patent policy is quite simple: all patents are ignored, except when they are being actively enforced against the creators/distributors/users of Free software; whereupon the patented softwar
    • You're assuming that computers will always be able to run free software, and that the networks and storage devices will be free to transmit and store any content. These freedoms are under attack.
  • The exact same issue exist in open and closed source products in this regard. In most cases, there's no indemnification, or it's limited to the product cost.

    The only substantial difference is that with F/OSS software, it's easier to identify violations and remediate them. It's also easier to trace the responsible party.

    The whole discussion highlights a travesty of US law -- that liability for patent violation can be extended beyond the violator to parties ignorant of the implementation. This is doubly idiot

Slashdot Top Deals

"For the love of phlegm...a stupid wall of death rays. How tacky can ya get?" - Post Brothers comics

Close