10.30.08
Posted in Law, Microsoft, Mono, Patents, IBM, FOSS, OIN at 5:01 pm by Roy Schestowitz
Slashdot seems to have broken the news about CueCat being patented. For those who are not familiar with it, here is the Wikipedia article, which tells an unfortunate story. There is also this bit of analysis that compares patent trolling to car rentals.
I was at an event this morning where the subject of so-called “patent trolls” came up (see also an earlier posting). Trolls are creatures who live under bridges and demand payment from travelers who wish to cross the bridge. Patent trolls are companies and/or individuals who buy patents for the purpose of making money off of infringement claims (rather than for the purpose of marketing/developing the invention). As such, trolls are a subcategory of (and take the organizational form of) the patent holding company. A good example of a patent holding company is Royalty Pharma, which makes its money off of the royalty stream. However, defining a troll, and differentiating it from a holding company, is sometimes tricky.
This brings us to the main subject of this post, which is an idea that our reader Jose has had for defending Free software from patents in general, not just patent trolls (which would be hard). Here it goes.
What about a license/terms of use/etc where people work on a project or simply contribute to a project (and keep copyrights) under the following condition:
- Anyone can draw up a patent on your contributions (shared authorship probably).
- Such patents will automatically be used so that full rights are granted for X type of project. X might be “all FOSS projects” or “all FOSS projects when used on all-FOSS platforms or all FOSH hardware, etc”.
Basically, I want to try and harvest patent law (the monopolies it provides) for our benefit, perhaps along the lines of something like the GPL.
If we can’t beat patent law, at least leverage it for good cause. The issue is that patents aren’t granted automatically as are copyrights. You have to write them up. If we add *lubrication* as suggested above, we can have legal and patent-minded individuals contribute to the community while those that simply want to code things up and not deal with patents, also go forward.
[Note, US laws gives you one year from time of publishing implementation or whatever… to submit the patent.]
“If we can’t beat patent law, at least leverage it for good cause.”As things are, if we make an “invention” (and don’t patent it), we open it up to the world to use (like BSD), but if Microsoft creates one (and patents it), we can’t use theirs. In both cases, a person stood on shoulders of giants, but only one of these “inventors” allowed others to stand even higher… and it was the nice inventors (FOSS) that ended up with the short end of the stick! That is bad way to reward innovation — a fundamental screw-up of patent law.
Of course, I am all against patents. They go too far (assuming copyrights are just fine themselves), but if we can find a practical way to leverage those PUKE laws, we increase the chances of patents not becoming an obstacle to FOSS.
As an example result, mono could “prove” themselves (or not) based on the patents they draw up. Similarly, patent-controversial projects can pay for themselves (redeem themselves) through patents. The coders don’t even have to be the ones drawing them up.
[Note, for the purposes of this mono example, I’ll pretend the patent issue is the only issue.]
Of course, this all stinks — patents do — but might this approach just described have some legs?
The GPLv3 already helps.
The GPL is a compromise. I’d actually like something stronger — like FOSS platforms required in order to use GPL apps.
I am conscience that if the GPLv3 was held back from having more teeth, that maybe what I am suggesting above will also not garner enough support. In fact, maybe what I am suggesting would be but a clause to the GPL.
And to attack patent trolls, say that if you enforce a patent against project X (maybe X needs to be of wide scope… like “any FOSS project”), then that person loses protection from that patent… so if they use any software that could violate one of these FOSSy patents, then they are in trouble (that might be a weakness of trolls today as well except that we FOSS crowd don’t have many patents). In short, something like the OIN protections would be implicit in this sort of FOSS contribution contract but perhaps apply automatically to all FOSS (and not just to Linux).
In short, we can work to accelerate MAD.. we can also make sure we own a bigger stake, to decrease chances of a change in patent laws leaving us behind.
Maybe we don’t need anything beyond what IBM and others contribute. Maybe patents won’t be a real problem for FOSS/business in practice.
Thoughts? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend 
View as PDF
08.10.08
Posted in GNU/Linux, Apple, Patents, FOSS, OIN at 8:45 am by Roy Schestowitz
India a Matter of Urgency
The software patents situation in India is not good. That’s the result of a quick assessment from FFII anyway. We last covered this here and here. It’s progressing and exacerbating as Microsoft strives to stuff committees and steal the country’s voice. Those who are not combative will simply leave room for neo-imperialists to take over that empty space. Revenue comes at the expense of people’s freedom.
In response to this atrophy which is software patents, the India press has published this article.
PATENTLY ABSURD
[…]
Here’s what Gates wrote in an office memorandum in 1991. “If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today’s ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today. . . I feel certain that some large company will patent some obvious thing related to interface, object orientation, algorithm, application extension or other crucial technique.”
This was the year after Microsoft launched Windows 3.0, the first of its new operating systems that would become hugely popular across the world. Yet, three years down the line, Microsoft had changed from a kitten that was content with copyright protection to an aggressive patents tiger. In 1991, Microsoft had filed fewer than 50 patent applications whereas last year it was awarded 1,637 patents, almost a 12 per cent increase in the number of patents it received in 2006. According to IFI Patent Intelligence, the rise in Microsoft’s patents portfolio bucked the general trend in 2007 when the number of patents issued by the US Patents and Trademark Office dipped by 10 per cent. Apparently several thousand of the company’s filings are still pending.
All this may prompt the reader to conclude that there is indeed a direct correlation between IPR and growth — and wealth — as the company claims. Not true, says Mark H Webbink, a US Supreme Court lawyer who is a recognised voice on IT issues. Charting the company’s revenues, R&D spending and patent filings from 1985 onwards, he shows that the spike in patent filings occurred long after the Microsoft “had become well established and was being investigated for its monopolistic practices”. Webbink contends that patents did not spur the launch and rapid growth of the mass market software industry. On the other hand, patents have become a threat to software innovation, he warns.
This was also published here and it’s good to see such information reaching the mainstream press.
OIN Under Bergelt’s Reign
As mentioned before, the leadership of OIN had quietly changed, but there are some good initiatives lurking over the horizon.
Earlier this week we wrote about a sort of OIN equivalent for mobile Linux (’fire blanket’ for patents). Well, it appears as though OIN itself will have a big announcement to make pretty soon.
In coming weeks, OIN will reveal more details of the site, which Bergelt described as “a production environment where we educate and train people to do this. We’ll work with them to make sure it’s put in a form that is acceptable.”
The effort will serve as a counterpart to OIN’s existing strategy, under which it provides its patents royalty-free to companies in exchange for a commitment that they won’t assert their patents against the Linux system. Its backers include NEC, IBM, Novell, Philips, Red Hat, and Sony. Google, Oracle and Alfresco are among the licensees.
Bruce Perens, who is well aware of Microsoft’s patent plot, had this to say:
Plain old published source code is at least somewhat protective, just look for “Perens” in a full-text search of the USPTO database to see an example of where it’s worked. There are a few patents there that reference Electric Fence as prior art.
However, you can make more claims in a defensive publication than might be exercised by your source code.
Of Trolls and Sharks
Digital Majority has found this article which talks about “patent sharks”. It is important not to phase out terminology like “patent trolls” as that’s just what culprits like Ray Niro would want [1, 2]. It’s token proliferation. It’s dilution.
Technology firms face a serious menace: patent sharks. These predators collect patents through acquisitions in bankruptcy proceedings, licensing agreements, or their own R&D efforts. They hide their intellectual property–to deliberately trap tech firms into inadvertent patent infringements. Then they sue.
And the awards are typically huge. Pure patent holding company NTP, for instance, sued best-selling BlackBerry maker Research in Motion in 2006 for violation of NTP patents. Under threat of an injunction that would have shut down the mobile e-mail service, RIM settled for over $600 million–even though several NTP patents were later declared invalid.
Here is another brand-new example:
Apple, RIM, Palm sued over vague GSM patents
Quick, you ever heard of WiAV Solutions? You know, the owner or exclusive licensee of several vague patents on the use of GSM tech in smartphones? The company that doesn’t make anything or even have a web site, but files so many patent lawsuits that some companies have taken to pre-emptively filing suits for declaratory judgment against it?
When will it stop? Can the USPTO put an end to this?
Big Boys and Their Intellectual Monopolies
Brand power (trademarks) and secrecy (copyrights) is not enough for everyone, so patent muscle and other notional things are soon summoned. Facebook is turning out to be a patent pest. It has quite a monopoly in its area and a new report has revealed that, some time in the past, Facebook actually wanted to buy the competitor that it’s now suing, instead. They are in direct competition and these are obvious ideas with plenty of prior art.
Before Facebook sued the German social networking site StudiVZ last month for copying its “look and feel,” it had been in talks to purchase the site.
Apple is no exception, either. It is a software patent pest and we previously showed how it directly harms GNU/Linux development. The Register claims to be having a patent duel with Apple.
Apple will fill in some long-awaited missing features from its iPod and iPhone mobile players, a patent application published this week suggests. There’s just one problem: Much of Apple’s “invention” was dreamed up by Reg readers several years ago - and one embodiment is already on the market.
The patent system is a mess. Serenity now. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
06.30.08
Posted in Law, Patents, Courtroom, OIN at 6:13 am by Roy Schestowitz
As many people are probably aware, OIN is an interesting-but-not-so-effective solution to the plague which is intellectual monopolies on software. In particular, OIN is unable to defend businesses or programmers who use software programs in the face of patent trolls. That being the case, it was odd to find this new initiative which seems like another OIN, plus a very hefty payment that leaves small businesses and free software developers out in the cold. They endorse rather than battle the problem.
Tech giants form group to buy patents
To join the group, each company will pay about $250,000 put about $5 million into escrow for future patent purchases, the newspaper reported, citing people familiar with the matter
This seems like a very partial solution which is self-serving to some giants, but what about the rest? Are they acquiring the privilege to be exempt from a broken law that they seem unable (or insufficiently willing) to fix? The same short article proceeds:
A sweeping patent law rewrite backed by seemingly every prominent hardware and software maker was part of that effort, but it stalled in the Senate last month. The so-called Patent Reform Act of 2007 would have curbed the ability of patent holders to obtain what the companies consider disproportionate damage awards, spurring the rise of so-called patent trolls who exist only to extort large payments out of deep-pocketed companies.
The giants just seek convenience here, as opposed to a cure.
In other news, another struggling company has just decided to sue all the giants from which it hopes to extract money.
Struggling in-flight entertainment house e.Digital is challenging some of the world’s biggest gadget companies with claims that it owns vital patents for using removable flash memory in portable devices.
It’s targeting brands such as Casio, LG Electronics, Olympus, Samsung and Sanyo in a legal scrap filed last March. But e.Digital says there’s a far larger pool of companies currently infringing its patents, and has “identified annual U.S. revenues of more than $20 billion,” from products using its technology.
This is business? This is development? An upsurge for the market? For lawyers, maybe. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
04.27.08
Posted in Red Hat, Microsoft, Novell, FUD, Asia, Ubuntu, OIN at 12:31 am by Roy Schestowitz
One particularly quiet head-change has gone almost unnoticed. As it turns out, Jerry Rosenthal stepped out of OIN and got replaced by Keith Bergelt.
Keith Bergelt, who made his name first with Motorola and subsequently as a pioneer in the world of IP finance at IP Innovations and then at Paradox Capital, has become the CEO of the Open Innovation Network (OIN). This is the company founded by IBM, Novell, Red Hat, Philips and Sony, that acquires intellectual property rights and then licenses them out royalty free to organisations that agree not to assert their own patents against either Linux or Linux-based applications. While at Paradox, Bergelt helped arrange several significant transactions, including deals around the purchase of Betsey Johnson by Castanea Partners.
The last I heard was that Jerry Rosenthal, the former VP of IP and licensing at IBM, was CEO of OIN, so presumably he has either left the organisation or moved to another post. As yet there is no official announcement from the organisation on its website announcing Bergelt’s arrival or what Rosenthal will now be doing.
Bergelt himself has already responded to this piece, which is appended as a clarifying update that shed more light:
So, my assuming the role of CEO of OIN (as I have recast it - the guardian of Linux responsible for enabling, influencing and defending the integrity of the Linux ecosystem) ties in all of my past experience and gives me a platform to continue to be an innovator but have a far more profound positive impact on the IP world and, more importantly, on the global macro-economy. I essentially manage a fund for some of the largest and most influential players in global technology - IBM, NEC, Sony, RedHat, Novell, & Philips - whose purpose is to enable the Linux ecosystem and shield it from patent attacks by patent trolls and others whose business models might be antithetical to true innovation and, by their nature, are opposed to truly facilitating work through rapid advancements in IT and communications technologies and applications.
Other giants in OIN include Oracle and Google, both being relatively recent additions. Sun’s CEO promised to protect Linux as well, but in a separate context. Novell’s role and membership there is a little strange because its deal with Microsoft beats the purpose of defense from Microsoft, a self-confessed hater of Linux and the GPL. It’s important to add that Microsoft’s little ’spinoffs’ — which may or many not include Acacia [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10], along with its software patent assault on Novell — come to mind as proof of the weaknesses of OIN. These shortcomings are not going away.
“It makes Novell a black sheep inside OIN and it’s a similar position to that of Novell in the FSF, ODF, the Linux Foundation and maybe even the EFF.”Moreover, some people reckon Microsoft will get closer to Novell over the years and maybe even devour it (along with SUSE). OpenSUSE already helps Novell in the development of a distro whose purpose is to replace all those ‘naughty’ Linux distributions such as Red Flag, Ubuntu and Fedora [1, 2, 3, 4], which ‘dare’ to refuse Microsoft’s ‘intellectual’ ownership of them. It makes Novell a black sheep inside OIN and it’s a similar position to that of Novell in the FSF, ODF, the Linux Foundation and maybe even the EFF. Why do they entertain a Microsoft partner?
Renewed Attempts to Squeeze Software Patents Into the EU
The American administration has been largely apathetic when it come to a needed patent reform. It recently put it on the ice. It just let industry giants essentially take the law into their own hands and abolish a ‘rebellion’ against intellectual monopolies. The US Government is suppressive to change, to correction through necessary readjustment. More worrying, however, is this unconfirmed report about a big industry lobby which is trying to force an unhealthy unification. It brings with it a broken system and blends it with a healthier one. Monopolisation through contamination, anyone?
The big industry, gathered inside a club named Trans Antlantic Business Dialogue, is lobbying the European Commission (McCreevy and Verheugen) and the American Department of Commerce (Carlos M. Gutierrez) to sign a bilateral treaty on harmonisation of patent law between the developed countries, which will probably not include the european exclusion of computer programs, thus provide a legal base to overhide the failure of the software patent directive in 2005.
Crêpe du Jour, Served by USPTO
Just watch what type of patent applications the USPTO accepts and approves.
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has issued patent number 7,355,990 for “Mobile-Originated to HTTP Internet Communications.” The patent describes a means for triggering an Internet informational query or search using a simple text message originated from a cell phone or mobile device, and is widely used today for two-way premium messaging services.
Worth noticing are the words “widely used today.” Not “to be innovative tomorrow” or “promising to be valuable.” Abusers of this dysfunctional system strive to get hold of an ownership certificate of something which already exists. It makes it a good weapon, or a candidate for extortion extraction.
China’s Nuclear Threat is a Patent Cold War, Armageddon
The Economist has this new article which warns about almost one million lawsuits in China.
WESTERN firms are always complaining about the theft of intellectual property in China. From knock-off designs to copycat brand names, pirated music and fake drugs, China has a well-earned reputation as a free-for-all when it comes to patents and copyrights. Worse, there often seems little hope of redress: the courts are too distant and too incompetent; the laws are too weak or too vague; the culture is too resistant to the very idea of intellectual property. Yet help is at hand, in the form of Chinese firms with patents to defend.
Since 2003 the number of trademark applications has grown by 60%; the number of patents has nearly doubled (850,000 are now active) and the number of lawsuits about intellectual property has more than doubled (see chart). The government is encouraging the trend in many ways, including signalling to the press to cheer it on.
[…]
Unsurprisingly, the main beneficiaries of the sudden interest in intellectual property are Chinese lawyers. Some reportedly earn more than $5m a year. Non-Chinese law firms sometimes provide advice on thorny cases. But they are not allowed to file patents or appear in court on behalf of a client—a proprietary process that Chinese lawyers are keen to defend.
It has always been about the lawyers, but marketed in a way which obscures this, using words like “invention”, “innovation”, “inventor” (turning negatives to positives), “protection” and “risk” (selling using fear). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
04.03.08
Posted in Red Hat, Microsoft, GNU/Linux, Novell, Ron Hovsepian, FUD, UNIX, Ubuntu, SUN, Oracle, OpenOffice, Interview, OIN at 9:45 pm by Roy Schestowitz
With tactless CEOs like these, who needs enemies?
Yesterday we wrote about the poor recent interview with Ron Hovsepian, CEO of Novell. The interview was poor for a variety of reasons, some of which were already mentioned in previous posts, but one largely overlooked issue was the attack on Sun.
“Hovsepian, hypocritically enough, called the kettle black.”Why would Novell want to attack Sun? For that matter, why would Amanda McPherson of the Linux Foundation pick these fights, which totally escape and ignore the real dangers? Just because Oracle is in OIN, for example, does not make it ’safe’ and benign to Linux, but at the same time, there is no justifiable reason to sort of ignite any of these ‘civil wars’ [1, 2], unless a company that uses GNU/Linux aligns with one which calls it a “cancer” and then uses FUD to market itself.
Ron Hovsepian’s ridicule of Sun (which needn’t be parroted here) was ironically enough about its open source strategy. Hovsepian, hypocritically enough, called the kettle black.
Here is one response to Hovsepian’s cheat shots or accusations. [via Simon Phipps]
Novell CEO Ron Hovsepian, (”ill considered” - Redmonk), not content with the murkiness of his own company’s patent arrangements with Microsoft (the two companies laughably “agreed to disagree” on whether or not their November 2006 agreement was an ackowledgement that Novell was infringing Microsoft patents), has decided to throw some mud in the general direction of OpenSolaris.
[…]
Now this isn’t Mr Hovsepian’s first ill-informed and misleading attack on OpenSolaris, but I don’t think that’s it’s really our fault. Simply put, he has a shortage of targets. I mean, who else is he going to attack? Given his position, he can’t very well attack another Linux distro, and he’s hardly going to attack Microsoft. Apple? For successfully porting of OpenSolaris technology into their operating system (without licensing any patents, we might point out)? Doesn’t really work, does it?
Open source needs better leadership that this.
Well done and congratulations, Ron Hovsepian and Novell. You’ve just made yourselves more enemies at Sun. Novell’s OpenOffice.org ‘fork’ [1, 2], which has some issues arising with the introduction of LGPLv3, didn’t do much good, either.
Just glancing over at Erwin’s blog you’ll come to discover another case study or reciprocity. It’s a case where OpenOffice.org assists GNU/Linux adoption and vice versa. 9,000 schools PCs were converted to GNU/Linux. So why fight?
How impolite of Novell not to acknowledge this and also forget where its code came from (Novell is a latecomer). It previously tried to throw mud also in the face of Red Hat, whose hard labour Novell enjoys yet discredits.
Realising that Red Hat FUD comes back to bite Novell in the rear, the company is looking for new targets. Novell will never criticise its new partner, Microsoft. So, who else? Should Novell be surprised that Sun is now doing business with Canonical (Ubuntu), as reported yesterday by Reuters? Novell painted itself into a corner, surely. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
02.09.08
Posted in Microsoft, GNU/Linux, Apple, KDE, OIN at 12:37 am by Roy Schestowitz
Patently discriminatory
Apple is not truly an opposer of software patents if the company’s deeds are anything to go by. We previously showed how this company’s software patents caused features in GNU/Linux to be castrated. Out comes KDE’s Aaron Seigo’s with further new complaints about this issue.
Many of Apple’s concepts such as icons stacks, parabolic zooming in panels and (most recently) widgets on media centers that they seem to feel are patentable are either unoriginal or just plain trivial.
[…]
Future society will look back upon us and cluck their tongue at how stupid we were for having let the patent system encroach upon things such as software on the one hand and become so baroque a system as to be generally lacking usefulness on the other.
Meanwhile, the OpenMoko team, which makes open Linux-based phones, expresses similar regrets as it finds itself in need for something like OIN.
We need to file patents for our hardware as well as software designs.
While my personal views on software patents are inline with people like
Eben Moglen, as a company, we are forced to play by the rules of the game.
What I want is for a our company’s patents to be freely available, for
anyone, but for defensive purposes only.
Are there any existing options available to us now? Does anyone know of
existing companies or organizations with a similar strategy that we can
seek guidance or partnership.
Groklaw has already advised him to look into OIN, which will stubbornly defend its members, shall it be necessary. Unsurprisingly, Microsoft refused to join OIN because it wishes to use software patents as a weapon. Amid problems perhaps, this would be the company’s last resort.
Other Software Patent News
Digital Majority cited some good articles that are worth mentioning. Among them:
Electronic Data Systems of Plano claims it holds the rights to U.S. Patent Nos. 7,156,300 and 7,255,268 which generally relate to a system and method for electronic purchase of prepaid telephone services. The plaintiff’s original complaint describes the inventions whereby a customer can purchase a specified amount of telephone service through a personal computer or an ATM machine.
The first patent was provisionally filed in 2000 and has been “in process” for the last 8 years. Yes, I said 8 years. Many think that Software Patents are stupid. I conceptually agree with this statement. Having spent what seems like millions of hours constructing these, baby sitting them, defending them; it is really all wasted time and effort, at least in a conceptual sense. There is no way for a software engineer or system architect to have any idea what exists out there to either copy or avoid (whatever the motivation).
…the Honourable Mr Justice Lewison in the Patents Court has dismissed Autonomy’s appeal against a refusal of their patent application relating to automated computer searching.
As Linus Torvalds recently indicated, software patents should be treated as an obstance. It is not a technical obstance, but a legal one. It’s a case of politics (and law) turned against competition. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
12.26.07
Posted in Law, GNU/Linux, Patents, America, Courtroom, IBM, Google, OIN at 11:51 pm by Roy Schestowitz
Only good news throughout the holidays
Robert Weber, a senior vice president for Legal and Regulatory Affairs and general counsel of IBM, has just published the following article about patent reform. It appeared in Forbes earlier today. From the end of this article:
As the largest holder of U.S. patents, we feel it is our responsibility, and the right time, to speak out forcefully in favor of reform. We are trying to do our share by unilaterally publishing a first-ever corporate policy aimed at promoting patent transparency and quality. We also initiated, and with others in the private sector, are working with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office to ensure that citizens have a voice in the patent review process.
But these voluntary efforts, along with recent wise Supreme Court decisions, are not enough.
Progress, not perfection, is the goal. It was so from Eli Whitney’s time, and is true today. Congress finally has an historic opportunity to address the thorniest of modern challenges, to secure America’s continued role as the leading innovator in the global economy.
There are other observations to be made which are also derived from the news. Our previous coverages of the Vonage rollercoaster saw the case culminating in a settlement, but it’s worth noticing the use of the world “capitalize” in the following latest coverage:
All Vonage wanted to do was to capitalize on the ability to make cheap, voice over Internet phone calls. Unfortunately, in their haste to deliver a working product, the company received complaints that it had trod upon the technology owned by other firms.
Therein lies the overlap, the trap, and the seemingly-endless maze of prior art. Amazon is no exception.
USPTO Reaffirms 1-Click Claims ‘Old And Obvious’
“After USPTO Examiner Mark A. Fadok rejected Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos’ 1-Click Patent claims as ‘old and obvious,’ Amazon canceled and refiled its 1-Click claims in a continuation application as it requested an Oral Appeal, a move that smacked of a good old-fashioned stalling tactic. But the move may have backfired, as Fadok has just completed his review of the continuation app and concluded that all of the refiled 1-Click claims should be rejected, providing explanations of why the Board of Patent Appeals was wrong to reverse his earlier decision after listening to Amazon’s lawyers in September. In October, USPTO Examiner Matthew C. Graham rejected most of the 1-Click claims as part of the reexam requested by LOTR actor Peter Calveley, a decision that attorneys for Amazon are currently trying to work around with some creative wordsmithing. Can’t see how all of this means ‘less work for the overworked Patent and Trademark Office.’”
Apart from the repeated, systematic and well-documented misuse by Amazon, the last sentence is worth special attention. Later on, trigger-happy lawyers whine about an ‘overburdened’ system — the burden that is self-imposed and a self-inflicted illness. We covered this Amazon issue many times before [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12]. It has become a classic case of abusing the system, so Amazon should — by all means — be ashamed of itself. It’s part of the problem, not the solution.
Meanwhile, Google seems to have escaped the wrath of another patent troll.
The appeals court ruled that Google’s immensely profitable AdSense did not infringe on Hyperphrase’s patents. It handed down a split decision on AutoLink, agreeing that Google did not infringe, as claimed, on one of the Hyperphrase patents.
Remember that Google is among those who took the role of ‘legal guardian’ for GNU/Linux, so it’s unlikely that they’ll ever turn against Free software. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
12.04.07
Posted in Red Hat, Microsoft, GNU/Linux, Patents, Kernel, OIN at 9:03 pm by Roy Schestowitz
“Primary prevention is better than cure”
Free software is against the idea that software should be patentable. That said, Red Hat holds quite a few defensive patents (a promise was made not to use them offensively). As Linux.com reported a month ago, Linux patents indeed exist. Where does that leave Free software? Is this a case of hypocrisy? A chicken-and-egg scenario that hinders resolutions to a patent mess? How does OIN fit into all of this? Not everyone can afford to file for a patent.
”It is not just mathematical knowledge, but an actual physical product with physical designs.“Exceptions are made with regards to patentability. For example, when an instrument is involved which is an integral part of the software, then some patent systems consider that patentable. This may be fine and it also protects Linux devices where there is more than just code. It is not just mathematical knowledge, but an actual physical product with physical designs. This sometimes adds an element of art and creativity.
Embedded.com has just released an extensive (albeit not in-depth) survey which covers embedded Linux patents.
As an electrical engineer with an automotive background, when I think of Linux, I think of servers, PCs, supercomputers, and so forth. Embedded applications don’t really come to mind when I consider Linux. However, Linux is used as an operating system for many phones, games, and other devices with embedded software.
[…]
You can search for patents by looking in the appropriate classes and subclasses if you can determine them. However, embedded Linux applications could be located in many different classes because they can be classified by the end system’s application.
[…]
In summary, most of the patent documents related to embedded Linux located in this search were filed between 2002 and 2005. No one company dominates the list of assignees but, rather, several companies from across the world. The number of U.S. patent applications filed related to the subject has seen as generally upward trend over the last few years, indicating increased popularity. Finally, even though Linux is a free-software operating system, it would be wise to search the U.S. patent database before commercially using Linux in an embedded application. Of course, refer to a licensed patent attorney if there is any doubt.
This may sound like unnecessary hassle. Google’s Android (Linux-based platform/stack), for example, encountered release delays due to patent licensing issues. It remains unknown if this was related to Sun Microsystems or some other unnamed party/ies.
It is worth remembering that Microsoft itself has admitted in court that in order for software to be patentable, there must be a device. You see, deep down inside, Microsoft knows that software patent opposes are correct, but it’s too selfish to admit it out in the open. Unless you go back to days when Microsoft was an underdog and spot the sheer hypocrisy… █
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
« Previous entries ·
Highlight: Novell was the first to acknowledge that Microsoft FUD tactics had substance. Novell then used anti-Linux FUD to market itself. 
Highlight: Xandros let Microsoft make patent claims and brag about (paid-for) OOXML support. 
Highlight: Linspire's CEO not only fell into Microsoft arms, but he also assisted the company's attack on GNU/Linux. 
Highlight: Microsoft craves pseudo (proprietary) standards and gets its way using proxies and influence which it buys. 
Highlight: The invasion into the open source world is intended to leave Linux companies neglected, due to financial incentives from Microsoft. 
Analysis: Xen, an open source hypervisor, possibly fell victim to Microsoft's aggressive (and stealthy) acquisition-by-proxy strategy.