EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

12.11.08

Linux Defenders: Obeying — Not Challenging — a Broken System

Posted in Deception, Europe, Finance, Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Novell, Patents at 10:21 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

THOSE WHO FOLLOWED RECENT posts about this subject [1, 2, 3] already know that we are not huge fans of the “Linux Defenders” initiative; not because it’s ineffective but because it’s the wrong way to approach the problem. It is a way that pleases big companies (and funding sources) like IBM, i.e. it keeps the things IBM likes and tackles those which it does not like. IBM is, sadly enough, not opposed to software patents. It just wants to weed out the ‘nuisance’ that’s a by-product.

To address the Big Issues, one needs to spend less time pushing papers and more effort fighting Microsoft’s (and others’) expansion of software patent laws — or alternatively back doors — into more countries. The suppressors want universal consent that Microsoft owns all sorts of algorithms and that Free software therefore becomes illegitimate or “not free”.

It used to be the same with DMCA, which expanded and expanded and expanded globally. It’s about taking people’s rights away, however artificially it needs to be done. (Sheesh! Just don’t mention the ACTA [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16])

The following article about “Linux Defenders” reminds readers of the source of this push, which is tied to IBM and even Novell.

The whole setup was apparently the brainchild of the Open Invention Network (the OIN registered the linuxdefenders.org domain, in fact), which appears to be patent-friendly twin of Linux defenders. The New York University’s Center for Patent Innovation provided some of the intellectual foundations for the group, and maintains the sites devoted to patent peer review.

Overall, this seems like a lot of effort to dedicate to simply staying out of trouble but, as the SCO case demonstrated, even spurious patent claims can keep open source software (and the companies that rely on it) tied up in court for years. Unless and until the patent system is reformed, Linux Defenders appears to be a necessary protective measure.

Here is a questionable bit from Heise.

Such projects are extremely important to the long term future of open source, which by its nature is vulnerable to patent attacks. As open source grows and gains commercial acceptance, it becomes a more tempting target for patent trolls.

Well, by OIN’s own admission, this approach does not stifle patent trolls. As such, to describe “Linux Defenders” as a response to patent-trolling is totally missing the point.

Digital Majority has been very active recently because it’s keeping an eye on articles discussing the patentability of software, e.g.:

  1. Patents Act 1977: Patentability of computer programs
  2. What “as such” means, what it really, really, nearly means …

EurActiv has been peddling a lot of Microsoft-serving agenda recently. It seems to be ushering a system that would potentially contaminate EU law with the sordid chaos that's the USPTO.

Several days ago we wrote about one example (ACT, a Microsoft shill, pushing for software patent loopholes in the EU), which Glyn Moody finally comments on as well.

The ACT seems to think that the patent system works so well in the US, that Europe absolutely must ditch its own quaintly fragmented approach, and adopt a nicely unified one closer to the Stateside model.

Pity, then, that books like Patent Failure provide hundreds of pages of incontrovertible evidence that the patent system there actually costs more money – in terms of litigation – than it generates for patent holders, with the possible exception of the pharmaceutical industry (and we all know what paragons they are, especially in their licensing terms to developing countries.)

EurActiv is now offering a full interview with a known Microsoft mouthpiece [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]. Microsoft is not even mentioned in the form of disclosure in this article and Jonathan Zuck keeps pretending to be a representative of small businesses, which he is not.

Fragmentation of the EU’s single market and particularly its patent system represent major obstacles to innovation, which is mainly driven by SMEs, Jonathan Zuck, president of an association representing more than 3,000 small and mid-sized IT firms from around the world, told EurActiv in an interview.

How many of these “3,000 small and mid-sized IT firms from around the world” actually fund Jonathan Zuck and ACT (or other shells)? On the face of it, none. This is not the first time that large businesses like Microsoft and their lobbies steal the voices of small ones.

These hired guns from ACT have even released a ‘study’ and it’s worth remembering who funds them.

There is a new page in “Worst EU Lobby Awards 2008″. ACT is not alone then.

There has been a broad discussion about his role in the debate about software patents in the European Parliament. Lehne has been one of the MEPs pushing for software patents, while Taylor Wessing has a large patent group and advises clients on patenting strategy in the software sector. Lehne has argued that he wasn’t involved with any companies engaged in the patents debate in his work as a lawyer. But still he is a partner in a law firm that boasts that its “patent group is one of the strongest, largest and best known in Europe”.

In conclusion, lobbying is to Microsoft what flying it to a bird. And it continues to this date. “Linux Defenders” is handling small potatoes whilst some big animals in the back yard are messing up with all the plantations. The “defenders” deal with grains, not crops.

In order to step up and resolve this litigious problem, people must never be led to believe that the cure lies in probing of patents one at a time while praying that laws will stay the same and hostile peers will be merciful. History is not forgiving.

Laws constantly want to be changed because companies and fortune holders always strive to elevate their level of power and control. As Richard Stallman once said, “geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won’t leave you alone.” He also said that “fighting patents one by one will never eliminate the danger of software patents, any more than swatting mosquitoes will eliminate malaria” and, to summarise more generally, “value your freedom or you will lose it, teaches history.”

Lincoln_address 1958

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

6 Comments

  1. Paul Gaskin said,

    December 11, 2008 at 2:50 pm

    Gravatar

    Roy, you’re right on point here. I feel the same way about the accumulation of software patent claims by both sides – it legitimizes a bad thing – software patents.

    Companies based on free software should be attacking the legitimacy of software patents, not filing their own.

  2. David Mohring (NZheretic) said,

    December 11, 2008 at 6:40 pm

    Gravatar

    As I answered Douglas Sorocco back in February 2006 What anti-software patent advocates want.

    Because of the existing precedent, removing software patents will require the introduction of explicit legislation. That will take time, probably many years to undo the damage from the lobbying by intellectual monopoly advocates such as yourselves.

    Until then, helping he USPTO track down prior art in publicly available open source software will greatly reduce the number of patents the software development industry will have to concern itself with.

    Richard Stallman created the GPL in part to address the extension and abuse of the copyright system by vendors. The result today is a massive body of collected work ( well over 70% of Open Source software is L/GPL’ed ) that is far too tempting for the same type of vendors not to incorporate in their own products and services. Many vendors are also finally getting their collective heads around the idea that developing in a copylefted commons can be really beneficial.

    The GPL uses the existing rights granted by copyright legislation as a double edged sword. The collective efforts under the Defend Linux project should be seen the beginnings of the forging of a new set of swords. ( see Rule #1 : vendors lending legal support )

    What Defend Linux does is indicate to any vendor or even IP troll initiating an action against a open source project will result in their entire IP portfolio is going to be put under the closest scrutiny. Given the quality of most software patents, it will act as quite a deterrent.

    That does not mean that open source projects can just ignore patents, copyrights, trademarks and EULAs. Projects such as Mono are doubly dangerous because of the possibility Microsoft can claim that re-implementations of DotNet in C# can violate Microsoft’s copyrights ( remember, unlike examples such as Unix, Posix and Java., not all of DotNet has been submitted by Microsoft as a standard ).

  3. Roy Schestowitz said,

    December 11, 2008 at 6:51 pm

    Gravatar

    I think it is still better to spend time and effort creating and empowering a coalition against software patents. It’s a group effort. In this Groklaw post (visible to members only), PJ seems to be burning out a bit, but I hope us volunteers can become louder nonetheless.

    I will hopefully publish my interview with OIN’s CEO tomorrow. It’s them who approached me and they should definitely have decent answers. I support “Linux Defenders”, but we can go beyond it. Volunteers can do better and I’m not the only one feeling this way.

  4. oiaohm said,

    December 12, 2008 at 7:05 am

    Gravatar

    Do you understand the problem factor its causing Linux development.

    http://lwn.net/Articles/308806/ KSM feature Linux Developers are bring back from the graveyard. Problem is since when it was first put forward and now Vmware now holds a patent on the issue. KSM could be delayed by years because of the Patent feature if Vmware wants to fight. Yes Linux kernel has the prior art of prior development. Problem here is that using that prior art takes time and can be disputed since it was never registered.

    Battle has to be held on many sides. Linux Defenders is doing the one section that is required. Defense filings on important features that might get shelfed for one reason or another so in future Linux world can do them without head aches.

    Now of course placing defense filings even if they don’t perfectly cover the issue if they can be shown to be linked to a prior art that does it makes disputing the age of the prior art harder. Defense filings are not black and white limits. Defense filings have more traps than someone can dream on trying to create a new patent on top of.

    We have to be able to win in the current patent system. Not just always be losing out. Of course does this mean stopping pushing for the patent system to be scrapped. Of course not.

    Also IBM does not apply patents against open source developers or uses. So yes IBM is looking at using patents as a wrecking ball against closed source development. Same reason lot of closed source development backed software patents.

    Please remember IBM is IBM. They will do anything to get profit without doing major harm. Microsoft talked about software patents as a way to crush open source. IBM is looking the other way.

    Lets see how this plays out. If IBM wrecking ball is bad enough other closed source companies might decide they have to get rid of patents to live.

    IBM plays a far better long term game than most companies. Closed source wanted software patents so IBM is going to profit from them. Who are we to argue. If people are too dumb to see that what ever they can use against open source could equally be used against them its not our problem.

    Open Source supporting companies should be embracing software patents just from the pure damage side they can do to there closed source competition. Old rule cannot beat the join them.

  5. Roy Schestowitz said,

    December 12, 2008 at 7:19 am

    Gravatar

    I am not opposed to “Linux Defenders”. It’s a fine project, but it places emphasis where patents are authorised rather than eliminated or at least challenged.

    By the way, IBM is a proprietary software company and a defender of software patents. It still successfully misleads many people, maybe thanks to marketing.

  6. oiaohm said,

    December 13, 2008 at 2:01 am

    Gravatar

    What the the best way to destroy something you don’t want Roy.

    Support it and make it hell for everyone.

    Any patent IBM holds is not a threat to open source development. They have a very clear policy on the matter. If what you are doing does not restrict them from using your application IBM have no patent claim against you.

    Yes charging money for it IBM classes as restricting.

    Even if IBM went anti software patent where would it really get us. Anti-software patent means they cannot attack closed source companies with software patents. Effectively allowing a 1 sided attack against open source. Yes Open source would lose.

    To beat software patents is a multi path attack.

    We need offensive on two fronts. 1 front inside the rules like IBM is doing making software patents too costly to support for closed source companies so they start calling for them to be destroyed. 2 front trying to get the rules changed threw political work.

    Yes you might not like IBM game plain. Really it is a effective one.

    Defensive publications of what Open Source is doing will reduce areas where patents can be taken out.

    Take a closer look at IBM. It is not a pure proprietary software company. They are Dependant on open source to sell hardware they cannot afford to see it destroyed. So yes they will defend open source they have even bought patents out right so open source projects can keep on going. Yes patents that were not for any of there current or future products.

    Of course being a commercial company profits for share holders is important. IBM basically sees software patents as a way to make money. With IBM rules against attacking open source they are really a big problem for those who think patents will destroy open source.

    If you want to develop open specification hardware you can also freely use IBM’s patents as well. There patent rules are quite simple you want secrets pay. If you don’t want secrets its free.

What Else is New


  1. Links 23/4/2018: Second RC of Linux 4.17 and First RC of Mesa 18.1

    Links for the day



  2. The Good Work of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and the Latest Attempts to Undermine It

    A week's roundup of news about PTAB, which is eliminating many bad (wrongly-granted) patents and is therefore becoming "enemy number one" to those who got accustomed to blackmailing real (productive) firms with their questionable patents



  3. District Courts' Patent Cases, Including the Eastern District of Texas (EDTX/TXED), in a Nutshell

    A roundup of patent cases in 'low courts' of the United States, where patents are being reasoned about or objected to while patent law firms make a lot of money



  4. The Federal Circuit's (CAFC) Decisions Are Being Twisted by Patent Propaganda Sites Which Merely Cherry-Pick Cases With Outcomes That Suit Them

    The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) continues to reject the vast majority of software patents, citing Section 101 in many such cases, but the likes of Managing IP, Patently-O, IAM and Watchtroll only selectively cover such cases (instead they’re ‘pulling a Berkheimer’ or some similar name-dropping)



  5. Patents Roundup: Metaswitch, GENBAND, Susman, Cisco, Konami, High 5 Games, HTC, and Nintendo

    A look at existing legal actions, the application of 35 U.S.C. § 101, and questionable patents that are being pursued on software (algorithms or "software infrastructure")



  6. In Maxon v Funai the High 'Patent Court' (CAFC) Reaffirms Disdain for Software Patents, Which Are Nowadays Harder to Get and Then Defend

    With the wealth of decisions from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) wherein software patents get discarded (Funai being the latest example), the public needs to ask itself whether patent law firms are honest when they make claims about resurgence of software patents by 'pulling a Berkheimer' or coming up with terms like “Berkheimer Effect”



  7. Today's European Patent Office Works for Patent Extremists and for Team UPC Rather Than for Europe or for Innovation

    The International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (AIPPI) and other patent maximalists who have nothing to do with Europe, helped by a malicious and rather clueless politician called Benoît Battistelli, are turning the EPO into a patent-printing machine rather than an examination office as envisioned by the EPC (founders) and member states



  8. The EPO is Dying and Those Who Have Killed It Are Becoming Very Rich in the Process

    Following the footsteps of Ron Hovsepian at Novell, Battistelli at the EPO (along with Team Battistelli) may mean the end of the EPO as we know it (or the end altogether); one manager and a cabal of confidants make themselves obscenely rich by basically sacrificing the very organisation they were entrusted to serve



  9. Short: Just Keep Repeating the Lie (“Quality”) Until People Might Believe It

    Battistelli’s patent-printing bureau (EPO without quality control) keeps lying about the quality of patents by repeating the word “quality” a lot of times, including no less than twice in the summary alone



  10. Shelston IP Keeps Pressuring IP Australia to Allow Software Patents and Harm Software Development

    Shelston IP wants exactly the opposite of what's good for Australia; it just wants what's good for itself, yet it habitually pretends to speak for a productive industry (nothing could be further from the truth)



  11. Is Andy Ramer's Departure the End of Cantor Fitzgerald's Patent Trolls-Feeding Operations and Ambitions?

    The managing director of the 'IP' group at Cantor Fitzgerald is leaving, but it does not yet mean that patent trolls will be starved/deprived access to patents



  12. EPO Hoards Billions of Euros (Taken From the Public), Decreases Quality to Get More Money, Reduces Payments to Staff

    The EPO continues to collect money from everyone, distributes bogus/dubious patents that usher patent trolls into Europe (to cost European businesses billions in the long run), and staff of the EPO faces more cuts while EPO management swims in cash and perks



  13. Short: Calling Battistelli's Town (Where He Works) “Force for Innovation” to Justify the Funneling of EPO Funds to It

    How the EPO‘s management ‘explained’ (or sought to rationalise) to staff its opaque decision to send a multi-million, one-day ceremony to Battistelli’s own theatre only weeks before he leaves



  14. Short: EPO Bribes the Media and Then Brags About the Paid-for Outcome to Staff

    The EPO‘s systematic corruption of the media at the expense of EPO stakeholders — not to mention hiring of lawyers to bully media which exposes EPO corruption — in the EPO’s own words (amended by us)



  15. Short: EPO's “Working Party for Quality” is to Quality What the “Democratic People's Republic of Korea” is to Democracy

    To maintain the perception (illusion) that the EPO still cares about patent quality — and in order to disseminate this lie to EPO staff — a puff piece with the above heading/photograph was distributed to thousands of examiners in glossy paper form



  16. Short: This Spring's Message From the EPO's President (Corrected)

    A corrected preface from the Liar in Chief, the EPO's notoriously crooked and dishonest President



  17. Short: Highly Misleading and Unscientific Graphics From the EPO for an Illusion of Growth

    A look at the brainwash that EPO management is distributing to staff and what's wrong with it



  18. Short: EPO Explains to Examiners Why They Should and Apparently Can Grant Software Patents (in Spite of EPC)

    Whether it calls it "CII" or "ICT" or "Industry 4.0" or "4IR", the EPO's management continues to grant software patents and attempts to justify this to itself (and to staff)



  19. Links 21/4/2018: Linux 4.9.95, FFmpeg 4.0, OpenBSD Foundation 2018 Fundraising Campaign

    Links for the day



  20. As USPTO Director, Andrei Iancu Gives Three Months for Public Comments on 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Software Patenting Impacted)

    Weeks after starting his job as head of the US patent office, to our regret but not to our surprise, Iancu asks whether to limit examiners' ability to reject abstract patent applications citing 35 U.S.C. § 101 (relates to Alice and Mayo)



  21. In Keith Raniere v Microsoft Both Sides Are Evil But for Different Reasons

    Billing for patent lawyers reveals an abusive strategy from Microsoft, which responded to abusive patent litigation (something which Microsoft too has done for well over a decade)



  22. Links 20/4/2018: Atom 1.26, MySQL 8.0

    Links for the day



  23. Links 19/4/2018: Mesa 17.3.9 and 18.0.1, Trisquel 8.0 LTS Flidas, Elections for openSUSE Board

    Links for the day



  24. The Patent Microcosm, Patent Trolls and Their Pressure Groups Incite a USPTO Director Against the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and Section 101/Alice

    As one might expect, the patent extremists continue their witch-hunt and constant manipulation of USPTO officials, whom they hope to compel to become patent extremists themselves (otherwise those officials are defamed, typically until they're fired or decide to resign)



  25. Microsoft's Lobbying for FRAND Pays Off as Microsoft-Connected Patent Troll Conversant (Formerly MOSAID) Goes After Android OEMs in Europe

    The FRAND (or SEP) lobby seems to have caused a lot of monopolistic patent lawsuits; this mostly affects Linux-powered platforms such as Android, Tizen and webOS and there are new legal actions from Microsoft-connected patent trolls



  26. To Understand Why People Say That Lawyers are Liars Look No Further Than Misleading Promotion of Software Patents

    Some of the latest misleading claims from the patent microcosm, which is only interested in lots and lots of patents (its bread and butter is monopolies after all) irrespective of their merit, quality, and desirability



  27. When News About the EPO is Dominated by Sponsored 'Reports' and Press Releases Because Publishers Are Afraid of (or Bribed by) the EPO

    The lack of curiosity and genuine journalism in Europe may mean that serious abuses (if not corruption) will go unreported



  28. The Boards of Appeal at the European Patent Organisation (EPO) Complain That They Are Understaffed, Not Just Lacking the Independence They Depend on

    The Boards of Appeal have released a report and once again they openly complain that they're unable to do their job properly, i.e. patent quality cannot be assured



  29. Links 18/4/2018: New Fedora 27 ISOs, Nextcloud Wins German Government Contract

    Links for the day



  30. Guest Post: Responding to Your Recent Posting “The European Patent Office Will Never Hold Its Destroyers Accountable”

    In France, where Battistelli does not enjoy diplomatic immunity, he can be held accountable like his "padrone" recently was


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts