|
Public Patent Foundation Announced & Sun Digs a Patent Hole For Itself |
|
Tuesday, November 04 2003 @ 01:34 AM EST
|
PUBLIC PATENT FOUNDATION RECEIVES SEED FUNDING, BEGINS OPERATION
Executive Director Named One of World's "Best Emerging Social Entrepreneurs"
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NEW YORK - The New York City-based Public Patent Foundation, a non-profit
organization aimed at protecting individuals and small businesses from the
negative effects of the patent system, has begun operations with the
assistance of seed financing provided by the global social venture fund
Echoing Green.
Daniel Ravicher, Founder of the Public Patent Foundation and a registered
patent attorney, was named by Echoing Green as one of the world's "Best
Emerging Social Entrepreneurs" for his campaign against patents that harm
the public health, impinge civil liberties, and impair free markets.
According to Ravicher, roughly half of all patents in the United States are
illegitimate, meaning they should have never been granted. Illegitimate
patents restrict the availability of critical medications to the public and
deprive small businesses in information technology industries of fair
opportunities to compete in the marketplace. Utilizing legal action,
advocacy and public education strategies, the Public Patent Foundation will
work to expose and neutralize illegitimate patents through various
mechanisms, including filing requests with the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office to have such patents revoked. Prominent law professors from Columbia,
Georgetown and Stanford law schools have already pledged support for the
organization.
"Most people do not realize how significantly illegitimate patents are
assailing their health, their freedoms, and their wallets," Ravicher, 28,
said. "The Public Patent Foundation will close this information gap and
represent the interests of the public on patent issues."
Through the Public Patent Foundation, Ravicher will launch an education
campaign regarding patents and implement various strategies for alleviating
the harms caused by patents. Ultimately, the Public Patent Foundation will
offer patent legal services to economically disadvantaged businesses and
individuals, prepare and file amicus briefs in important patent cases, and
establish a patent commons through which patents are made available to the
public on favorable terms.
"Eliminating illegitimate patents will save the general public billions of
dollars by removing barriers to competition in the marketplace for formerly
patent-protected goods," says Ravicher. "Raising awareness of the patent
system's devastating effects will promote dialogue and encourage support for
reforming the system."
Ravicher received a bachelor's degree in materials science magna cum laude
from the University of South Florida and a law degree from the University of
Virginia School of Law, where he also received the Public Service Award.
Prior to founding the Public Patent Foundation, Ravicher practiced patent
law with Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Brobeck, Phleger &
Harrison, LLP, and Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler, LLP, all in New York.
Throughout his career, Ravicher has performed hundreds of hours of pro bono
legal services for individuals, nonprofit organizations, and small
businesses.
"Our goal is to preserve, protect, and promote the rights of the general
public to have goods available in the marketplace without encumbrance from
illegitimate patents and unsound patent policy," said Ravicher. "We want to
provide the public with an understanding of and a voice in the process."
Contact:
Daniel Ravicher, Executive Director, Public Patent Foundation
Phone: 917-843-3425
Email: dan-AT-pubpat.org
Web Site: www.pubpat.org
******************* Sun Digs A Patent Hole For Itself In case you wonder why Dan might decide we might need a Public Patent Foundation, note this story about Sun's plans for Mad Hatter. They are busy digging a patent hole for themselves, evidently so they can give themselves a decent burial. I know I won't go to their funeral. Maybe in a red dress. Some Sun executives were asked by Tom Yager why anyone would pay $100 per seat for Mad Hatter, their Linux offering, when they can get it for free. Sun's answer? Because they have patentable technology inside: "I met with executives at the SunNetwork conference about Mad Hatter, the x86 desktop Linux that Sun is rolling out. Mad Hatter is a combination of Linux, GNOME, StarOffice and the Evolution email client.
"If you replace StarOffice with OpenOffice, you can pull together a nearly identical bundle from scratch. Sun contends that users aren’t willing to invest the effort to imitate Mad Hatter. Perhaps so, but in the present market, $US100 per seat is a lot to pay for a desktop Linux.
"A quartet of Sun execs good-naturedly let me bat this issue around the table. Eventually I was left with one question: How can Mad Hatter make a profit when its features can be duplicated using free software? Sun answered, 'We have some patentable technology in there.' They didn’t offer any specifics.
"For some watching this issue closely, Sun crossed the line when it let the words 'Linux' and 'patent' get too close to each other. I’m concerned that Sun patents could head off similar technology that’s already part of an open design." So, I guess it's true. Some people *are* too stupid for Linux. And some companies are too. Are there any ways left Sun can insult the community it hasn't already tried? $100 a seat and a patent inside. Groan. Of course, Mad Hatter is doomed, as a result. So is Sun, if this is their level of strategizing. It's the Alamo for them, no doubt about it. But before they are completely dead and buried, they can probably cause some mischief, so I hope all you guys are thinking about the patent issue and taking practical steps. If you haven't registered your copyrights, that's a prudent move too. There are maniac psycho killer companies on the loose, willing to destroy Linux for a quick buck that they won't realize anyway, even if they were to grab Linux all for themselves. It's like Old Caldera and its combination proprietary and free. We all knew that wouldn't work and it didn't. To this day they don't know why they couldn't make a profit. Mad Hatter won't work either. They just don't get what it is about GNU/Linux that we like. So they can't offer it; instead they offer their own warped Brand X ripoff, like Hollywood's "teen music" in the 50s, instead of Rock and Roll. Frankie Avalon and Annette Funicello, for crying out loud. Beach Party Bingo. Like the song says, Ain't Nothing Like the Real Thing. I must commend Sun on one thing, though. Say what you will, those wacky guys picked the perfect name for their product.
|
|
Authored by: Chris Cogdon on Tuesday, November 04 2003 @ 03:02 AM EST |
You know, just when I think we're all doomed to a life controlled by just a
handful of big corporations with their massively locked-in vertical markets,
something like the Public Patent Foundation comes along and gives our futures
new hope.
This kicks some serious tush.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 04 2003 @ 03:45 AM EST |
We need to reform the whole software IP paradigm, that is: patents, copyrights,
trade secrets - not just patents. We need to create new forms of IP specifically
geared to the way software innovation works and to the pace of software
innovation. These new forms of IP must give an incentive to corporations to push
innovation constantly rather than sit back and coast along. Corporations such as
IBM and RH which have proved to be good friends of OSS need to have their say
and if there are any arguments, let these arguments be among friends who are
mindful of each others' needs - up to a point, that is.
I believe that this foundation will at best give us only part of the
comprehensive answer that we seek. I have no doubt that the corrupt and
incompetent USPTO will claim, as more and more inappropriate patents are
challenged, that the system "works". If the system
"works", it will be no thanks to their efforts.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- New laws? - Authored by: MathFox on Tuesday, November 04 2003 @ 04:43 AM EST
- New laws? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 04 2003 @ 09:18 AM EST
- New laws? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 04 2003 @ 09:19 AM EST
- New laws? - Authored by: worldyroyster on Tuesday, November 04 2003 @ 09:56 AM EST
- New laws? - blacklight - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 04 2003 @ 11:33 AM EST
- Almost there. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 04 2003 @ 07:15 PM EST
|
Authored by: worldyroyster on Tuesday, November 04 2003 @ 04:05 AM EST |
Yipee. Well that sure makes my day.
Let's hope that SCO doesn't turn to them and become one of their first cases.
I mean, despite my earlier comments about my lack of consideration for IBM's
use of patents, I don't think SCO getting the support of this foundation would
do a lot of good for the public image of this important cause...
But if it has to be done, it has to be done.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 04 2003 @ 04:19 AM EST |
You can't distribute GPL software if you are not willing to grant free (as in
beer) access to all patents it touches. Maybe Sun should read the GPL
before they find themselves in SCO's spot sooner than later.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 04 2003 @ 05:20 AM EST |
Only place to hide the patent is is the non GPL code. They cannot (at least not
with this SCOap going on) claim ignorance on the GPL.
Only non GPL piece they have is Star Office. But they can (and the GPL allows
it) try to sell the entire package, just as long as the GPL code is also
available for at most the costs needed to distribute it.
Their astounding lack of ignorance is showed in the claim that people are not
willing to look up all the stuff in it is not the same place so they will go to
SUN to shell out $100 per computer for it.
RedHat itself (basic enterprise level) costs $179 but that is not so much for 1
copy as for a year of (e-mail) service and the guarantee you get OS updates
every 3 months. Did I mention you can use that 1 copy for an entire company?
So the moment you have 3 or more computers (4 or more for standard level support
from RedHat) it becomes very interesting to let one person spend and hour or two
(add the time for each computer above the minimum) to look for the stuff.
Speaking of that anyone willing to setup a site where you can download
everything (except StarOffice, replace that by OpenOffice) for free? Just to
make the point toward Sun.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Suns IP - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 04 2003 @ 08:57 AM EST
- Suns IP - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 04 2003 @ 09:38 AM EST
- Suns IP - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, November 04 2003 @ 10:04 AM EST
- Debian manage it - Authored by: Magpie on Tuesday, November 04 2003 @ 02:16 PM EST
- Suns IP - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 04 2003 @ 08:56 PM EST
- Suns IP - Authored by: Sri Lumpa on Wednesday, November 05 2003 @ 12:18 AM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 04 2003 @ 06:39 AM EST |
I was talking with a Sun insider (not a PR droid) last week and he said that the
reason Sun charge for software such as StarOffice (and I guess Mad Hatter) is
that they are targetting _corporate_ installations. Strange as it may seem, if
you are selling to a Pointy Haired Boss, you also have to sell support - they
want the complete package from the same single point of contact. For that
market $100 a seat is quite cheap.
Sun doesn't expect the Linux masses to be interested in StarOffice when they
can get OpenOffice for free.
I do think that Sun should fire their current PR staff.
Internally the systems people dispair at the insane things that are said about
Linux in the name of Sun.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: gr0m on Tuesday, November 04 2003 @ 08:37 AM EST |
'We have some patentable technology in there.'
Surely that would have
to be either patented or patent pending. You can't go back and
file for a patent after you have published, for all the world to see, whatever
methods that you thought were patentable in the first place.
SCOspeak seems
to be a contagious disease. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 04 2003 @ 08:55 AM EST |
I thought this was a legal research site about the SCO trials. It is definitely
an excellent resource for such information. I think it should remain so.
I can understand off-topic comments and threads, but I find it discouraging
when the main articles portray PJ, or whoever wrote them, as being so high on
their own success as commentators that they decided to try to become business
analysts. This diminishes the articles' impact. (ESR is not a business analyst
either, by the way.)
Stick to research, please!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Sun is doomed - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 04 2003 @ 09:16 AM EST
- Sun is doomed - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 04 2003 @ 09:39 AM EST
- Sun is doomed - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, November 04 2003 @ 09:58 AM EST
- Click on :"Why Groklaw" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 04 2003 @ 09:47 AM EST
- Sun is doomed - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, November 04 2003 @ 10:01 AM EST
- Sun is doomed - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 04 2003 @ 10:13 AM EST
- Excuse me... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 04 2003 @ 11:05 AM EST
- Sun is doomed - blacklight - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 04 2003 @ 11:36 AM EST
|
Authored by: tazer on Tuesday, November 04 2003 @ 09:18 AM EST |
FYI, Novell acquires SuSE:
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5101680.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: keanu on Tuesday, November 04 2003 @ 09:24 AM EST |
Sorry, I know, its off-topic.
I read on heise.de: Novell takes SuSE for 210 milion US$
(http://heise.de/newsticker/data/odi-04.11.03-000) and Redhat doesn't support
RH 7-9 anymore (http://heise.de/newsticker/data/kav-04.11.03-000/)
There's a press release of SuSE, linked from the novell.de (in german):
http://www.suse.de/de/company/press/press_releases/archive03/novell_suse.html
Pressrelease on novell.com:
http://www.novell.com/news/press/archive/2003/11/pr03069.html
What do you think about this?
-- keanu[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 04 2003 @ 10:30 AM EST |
" They just don't get what it is about GNU/Linux that we like. "
Different people like Linux for different reasons. Many corporate users seem to
be switching to Linux because it is reliable, secure or cheap, not because it is
free (like in free speach).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 04 2003 @ 12:04 PM EST |
Sun may be charging $100, but as of today Red Hat is asking $179 for the
equivalent of the previous demo subscription. You get the software plus errata
and updates. I'm not kvetching - I do want to see Red Hat make a profit.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 04 2003 @ 12:21 PM EST |
One thing is clear to me. We need to keep an extremely close watch on Sun for
any code contributions they make. In fact, I would suggest right now that the
community does <b>not</b> incorporate any code donated by Sun
<b>ever</b>, unless they sign a legally binding agreement to the
effect that they will not "pull a SCO" on us sometime in the future.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 04 2003 @ 12:23 PM EST |
There seems to be a lot of static about the idea that SCO might seek(and get)
patent help from an organization such as this Public Patent Foundation(was that
the name?).
I want SCO to disapear as much as the next guy, but look at the larger picture:
Software patents are a sword of Damocles, hanging over every software developers
head.
If I remember correctly one of the IBM patents had to do with --menu traversal--
stuff that, as a design desision, could easily be reproduced independantly and
implemented without ever knowing about the existence of the patent.
I read it and shuddered.
How would you like to be told that the program you designed from the ground up,
with no reference to Company X's spec's or products uses a routine that
infringes on Company X's patent, and you have to either pay royalties or go
back to the drawing board. I'm not talking about reverse engineering here
either. Original work can be held hostage in just such a way.
If IBM had software patent(s) declared invalid during this proceeding it would
be a win for us too.
I think OSS and the GPL have little to fear. IBM has little to fear unless it
did in fact breach contract (doesn't look like it though) SCO is guilty of
copyright violations even if the patents are a non issue.
I'll say it again. If IBM had software patent(s) declared invalid during this
proceeding it would be a win for everyone. Software developers would no longer
depend on IBM's good will (and we can see how radically a change in management
can affect a companies good will).
Josh Clayton[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 04 2003 @ 02:29 PM EST |
Roughly half of all patents in the United States are illegitimate
I
read patents from time to time in my work – one day I decided to read a bunch
sequentially, by number. The percentage of empty patents is more like 95%.
What one needs to realize is that most patents are written by
“venture-vultures” in order to raise money from individuals and their bankers.
The patent office is AWOL/incompetent/corrupt to the point that most anyone can
get a patent on anything if he pays enough. The patent is then used for
collateral etc. when in fact it is worthless.
The cost to enforce a patent
or to break a illegitimate patent is typically over one million dollars. So to
patent and idea that will sell less than $15million is a total waste (unless
you want to snooker your banker into loaning you more money).
So in the
final analysis – except in a very few rare cases – a patent is just a license to
enrich ones lawyer. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 04 2003 @ 04:21 PM EST |
Their patents on anything published by them under the GPL won't matter much
because the GPL gives the user a patent license automatically. If they are
putting patents in binary applications they will mean more but binary
applications aren't open source by definition and wouldn't be useable in open
source distributions anyway.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 04 2003 @ 08:48 PM EST |
What a wonderful thing!
The world is becoming civilize again.
Hail the PPF!!![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|