|
Munich's Mayor on LiMux and Other Examples of Software Patents Hindering Progress |
|
Saturday, August 07 2004 @ 08:11 AM EDT
|
Silicon.com is reporting that, once again, the headlines didn't present a totally accurate picture. Munich's Mayor Christian Ude now says that no one has given up on the LiMux project. There's a big difference, he says, between suspended and cancelled:
"'The town stands by the LiMux initiative and its strategic decision in favour of open-source solutions,' the mayor said in a statement on the city council's website." Their legal eagles have to evaluate the patent risk, and meanwhile, I gather a whole lotta politicking is going on to educate on the effect software patents will have on FOSS. The mayor says this:
"'It all depends from now on the European councils and businesses who are interested in open source: they must exert their influence on national governments and on the European authorities.'" There can be no question that there is a growing awareness that patents can be deadly to innovation in software, and not just to FOSS. I was researching and I came across this submission [PDF] by Zenaan Harkness to the Senate Select Committee on the Free Trade Agreement between Australia and the United States of America.
Here are some snips from it, in which he talks about why patents and copyright laws, unless they are of very short duration, actually hinder innovation and progress in the software industry: "To whom it may concern:
"I wish to express my grave concern as to the damaging potential to the software
industry potentially caused by DMCA-like provisions, copyright extensions and
software patents.
"The question to ask is do these foster local industry, and primarily small to
medium sized companies, or do such laws, treaties and the like simply prop up
existing monopolies that can otherwise no longer compete in today's economy - an
economy where the barrier to entry is becoming very low, where an individual or
small group can get out there and have a fair go. . . .
"There must be a balance between what society gives up in return for these
legislative monopolies, and the supposed benefit that society gains from
granting such monopolies. In the software world where the barrier to entry is so
low, the grant of monopoly is in many if not all cases, simply a barrier to the
learning and further expression of others. . . .
"The problems arise when the term of such monopolies lies well beyond the useful
life of that which is created. In the computer software world, that life is very
much shorter than in traditional 'media' - in the order of a few years at most.
It is beyond any shadow of a doubt that, in the world of software and software
development, that the monopolies so granted, due to their relatively huge
duration, merely prohibit innovation. . . .
"Essentially, the periods of monopolies granted, if granted at all for software,
must be extremely short if they are to benefit society as a whole, rather than
simply prop up existing monopolistic companies and old-school business practices
that cannot otherwise compete . . . " The list of all the submissions is online but I found his particularly striking.
Here's another example of trying to educate on the subject of patents for software, this time in England back in 2000, when Edward Welbourne was asked, I gather by someone in the patent office, questions about patents on computer software and ways of doing business. He answered neither should be granted patents, and here are some reasons: "One of the major phenomena of the present rapid-growth phase of my
industry (software) is `incremental innovation' - where one player
mimics another and adds some features - which is very vulnerable to
`strategic' use of patents; large parts of the industry are already
tangled in a web of mutual cross-licensing (which acts as a barrier
to entry for new players in the industry) which it would be hard to
distinguish from a cartel (had their lawyers not made sure to do the
deals in some way definitely distinguishable (to the law, if not to
the rest of us) from a cartel).
"I believe a *reduction* in the scope of patents would
make it easier for me to do my job (not having to spend half my
time looking over my shoulder to check whether I'm infringing
a patent when I use my latest ingenious idea),
provide consumers with greater choice,
facilitate incremental innovation,
open up a wider range of business models by which inventors could
earn a living (e.g. consultancy, without having to argue
about whether they or their client ends up owning the patents),
reduce barriers to entry in a wide range of markets - hence
encouraging competition, free enterprise and innovation, while
serving consumers better. . . .
"Q7. If you have any experience of the US position on patenting
software or business methods, how would you assess it?
"Limited experience only.
"The worst part of their system is that judgement of `non-obvious and
original' has been slapdash and failed to take account of significant
prior art; patents have been granted which are both obvious and
blatantly derivative; whole businesses have been set up to exploit this
state of affairs, thereby exacerbating it.
"The impact on my employers' business has tended to involve living
with the risk that we might be unable to sell our products to folk
in the U.S.A. . . .
"One final note: at present, such an enormous number of patents are
being granted (especially in the U.S.A.) that it is utterly absurd to
suggest that I can check whether a program I am writing (or any other
kind of product I could develop) infringes some of them. Furthermore,
in many cases, it is not possible to discover whether I infringe
without actual litigation and a court ruling; and, even if I do not
infringe, my ability to make a decent return in my investment in my
program (or other product) is endangered by the prospect that my
first-to-market lead will be obliterated by the period when I'm being
prevented from trading by a court's injunctive relief for someone who
*claims* I've infringed their patent. Where I cannot tell whether I
am committing a crime, and where I am unable to prove a counter-suit
for malicious prosecution when someone falsely claims I have committed
a crime, the law causes exactly such trouble as it is meant to spare me.
"Patents create a climate of realistic fear for smaller players.
They are not in any sense necessary for larger players to do well.
Some form of scaling back of the scope of patents is needed." Mr. Wellbourne has also written an essay on why software is different and particularly ill suited to patent protection, and here is a sample: "First, I note that the reason generally given for providing patents is that they reward inventors, thereby stimulating innovation. In the software industry, there is no lack of innovation - indeed, our customers might with good cause beg us to slow the flood of innovation, which swamps the users of our products in permanent upheaval. Stimulating innovation in the software industry is unnecessary.
"Second, it suffices to examine the patents that the European patent office has been granting - such as the Amazon patent I allude to above, which would appear to cover a business method InterFlora have been using for decades - to see that the patent office is incapable of assessing whether a claimed innovation is indeed novel and non-obvious to practitioners in the relevant field of endeavour: the industry has no faith in the patent examiners' ability to assess these issues (and this applies to every patent office which has granted patents on software, some of which have been doing so for years - it is not just that the EPO's examiners are inexperienced). The essential cause of this is that the software industry is innovating so fast that it is impossible for an examiner to be well appraised of the state of the art - it is, indeed, hard even for full-time practitioners to keep up. Regardless of the reason, the inability of patent examiners to win the confidence of the industry is a material difference between software and those industries which are well-served by the patent system.
"The software industry, without any interference from the patent system, innovates at a break-neck pace: this makes patents both unnecessary and unworkable in the 'software as such' industry."
Here you have two men in the software business, each begging *not* to be "protected" by patents. Are they just starry-eyed idealists, who don't understand business? or have they seen something counterproductive about patents for software? Some MIT economists decided to take a look at the effect patents have on innovation and see if the rationale for granting patents has a reality base. Their paper, SEQUENTIAL INNOVATION, PATENTS, AND IMITATION, by James Bessen and Eric Maskin was published in 2000. I believe even SCO accepts the credentials of MIT. And here is what they concluded after their study: "The standard economic rationale for patents is to protect potential innovators from imitation and thereby give them the incentive to incur the cost of innovation. Conventional wisdom holds that, unless would-be competitors are constrained from imitating an invention, the inventor may not reap enough profit to cover that cost. Thus, even if the social benefit of invention exceeds the cost, the potential innovator without patent protection may decide against innovating altogether.. . .
"In fact, the software industry in the United States was subjected to a revealing natural experiment in the 1980’s. Through a sequence of court decisions, patent protection for computer programs was significantly strengthened. We will show that, far from unleashing a flurry of new innovative activity, these stronger property rights ushered in a period of stagnant, if not declining, R&D among those industries and firms that patented most. We maintain, furthermore, that there was nothing paradoxical about this outcome. For industries like software or computers, there is actually good reason to believe that imitation promotes innovation and that strong patents (long patents of broad scope) inhibit it. Society might be well served if such industries had only limited intellectual property protection. Moreover, many firms might genuinely welcome competition and the prospect of being imitated. This is because these are industries in which innovation is both sequential and complementary. By 'sequential,' we mean that each successive invention builds on the preceding one—in the way that Windows built on DOS. . . .
"A firm that patents its product in a world of sequential and complementary innovation can prevent its competitors from using that product (or sufficiently similar ideas) to develop further innovations. And because these competitors may have valuable ideas not available to the original firm about how to achieve such innovations, the patent may therefore slow down the pace of invention. . . .
"But whether or not patent protection is available, a firm may well be better off if other firms imitate and compete with it. Although imitation reduces the firm’s current profit, it raises the probability of further innovation and thereby improves the prospect that this firm will make another profitable discovery later on. In short, when innovation is sequential and complementary, standard reasoning about patents and imitation may get turned on its head. Imitation becomes a spur to innovation, while strong patents become an impediment. . . .
"Conclusion -- Intellectual property appears to be one of those areas where results that seem secure in the context of a static model are overturned in a dynamic model. Imitation invariably inhibits innovation in a static world; in a dynamic world, imitators can provide benefit to both the original innovator and to society as a whole. Patents preserve innovation incentives in a static world; in a dynamic world, firms may have plenty of incentive to innovate without patents and patents may constrict complementary innovation. This suggests a cautionary note regarding intellectual property protection. The reflexive view that 'stronger is always better' is incorrect; rather a balanced approach is required. The ideal patent policy limits 'knock-off' imitation, but allows developers who make similar, but potentially valuable complementary contributions." Richard Stallman presents the following experience: "In the early 90s we desperately needed a new free program for compression, because the old de-facto standard 'compress' program had been taken away from us by patents. In April 1991, software developer Ross Williams began publishing a series of data compression programs using new algorithms of his own devising. Their superior speed and compression quality soon attracted users.
"That September, when the FSF was about a week away from releasing one of them as the new choice for compressing our distribution files, use of these programs in the United States was halted by a newly issued patent, number 5,049,881.
"Under the patent system's rules, whether the public is allowed to use these programs (i.e., whether the patent is invalid) depends on whether there is 'prior art"': whether the basic idea was published before the patent application, which was on June 18, 1990. Williams' publication in April 1991 came after that date, so it does not count.
"A student described a similar algorithm in 1988--1989 in a class paper at the University of San Francisco, but the paper was not published. So it does not count as prior art under the current rules.
"Reforms to make the patent system work 'properly' would not have prevented this problem. Under the rules of the patent system, this patent seems valid. There was no prior art for it. It is not close to obvious, as the patent system interprets the term. (Like most patents, it is neither worldshaking nor trivial, but somewhere in between.) The fault is in the rules themselves, not their execution.
"In the US legal system, patents are intended as a bargain between society and individuals; society is supposed to gain through the disclosure of techniques that would otherwise never be available. It is clear that society has gained nothing by issuing patent number 5,049,881. This technique was going to be available anyway. It was easy enough to find that several people did so at around the same time.
"Under current rules, our ability to use Williams's programs depends on whether anyone happened to publish the same idea before June 18, 1990. That is to say, it depends on luck. This system is good for promoting the practice of law, but not progress in software.
"Teaching the Patent Office to look at more of the existing prior art might prevent some outrageous mistakes. It will not cure the greater problem, which is the patenting of every new wrinkle in the use of computers, like the one that Williams and others independently developed.
"This will turn software into a quagmire. Even an innovative program typically uses dozens of not-quite-new techniques and features, each of which might have been patented. Our ability to use each wrinkle will depend on luck, and if we are unlucky half the time, few programs will escape infringing a large number of patents. Navigating the maze of patents will be harder than writing software. As The Economist says, software patents are simply bad for business." And just in case none of the above convinces you, it might interest you to know that patent lawyers are abuzz about a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to review a patent case, Phillips v. AWH, because they are hoping for some reform, and when lawyers are clamoring for reform of the legal system, you know something is surely broken: "'I'm ecstatic,' said William Atkins, a partner in Pillsbury Winthrop's McLean, Va., office. 'What the Federal Circuit will tinker with is at the heart of the U.S. patent litigation system. One small modification, and it affects virtually all U.S. patents.'
"'All district judges and practitioners have been tearing their hair out' over how to read a patent claim, said Michael Barclay, a partner at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. 'The problem is that three-judge panel cases have been all over the map. There have been no consistent guidelines.' "Sometimes courts rely on dictionary definitions, sometimes the language in the patent itself.
Barclay said district judges are reversed on claim construction 50 percent of the time, 'so they might as well flip a coin.'" Flipping a coin means appeals are inevitable, because the loser always knows he has a shot on appeal. No wonder patent cases are so expensive. Chief Judge Haldane Robert Mayer dissented from the court's decision to review Philips v. AWH, because he felt the decision didn't go *far* enough to change the broken patent system, or as he put it, "because I am convinced that shuffling our current precedent merely continues a charade, I dissent from the en banc order."
|
|
Authored by: inode_buddha on Saturday, August 07 2004 @ 08:19 AM EDT |
In case some info might be useful
---
"When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price." --
Richard M. Stallman[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: inode_buddha on Saturday, August 07 2004 @ 08:30 AM EDT |
"Here are some snips from it, in which he talks about why patents and
copyright laws, unless they are of very short duration, actually hinder
innovation and progress in the software industry:" Perhaps because
software itself is so short-lived (of "short duration") much like ideas even put
to words? --- "When we speak of free software, we are referring to
freedom, not price." -- Richard M. Stallman [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 07 2004 @ 08:51 AM EDT |
While this delay may or may not be short lived, in the context of their concerns
they really only seem to have a few options.
1. Continue to delay and attempt to block the acceptance of patents into the
lawbooks of EU countries.
2. Purchase Patent Protection Insurance from OSRM or other insurers and hope
it's sufficient.
2. Ignore threat and possibly invite patent lawsuits and/or court orders
impacting their operation at some unknown point in the future.
4. Others?
Looks like either one of the first two are their best options?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 07 2004 @ 09:00 AM EDT |
The problem is allowing patents on obvious derivatives. These should *never* be
patentable. And there should be a cheap & easy way of overturning these.
However, an amazing innovation, even in software, should be protectable.
There is no real difference between software & hardware etc. It's only
because what's "obvious" in software is much harder to determine.
Fight the 98/99% of "obvious" patents? Yes. Including those on
software.
But patents have their place, and push for too much, and you will end up with
nothing.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Software, wot software? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 07 2004 @ 09:39 AM EDT
- Software, wot software? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 07 2004 @ 09:45 AM EDT
- Strongly disagree with parent - Authored by: PolR on Saturday, August 07 2004 @ 04:14 PM EDT
- One question... - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 08 2004 @ 02:58 AM EDT
- One Answer... - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 08 2004 @ 04:45 PM EDT
- Amazing? - Authored by: ihawk on Saturday, August 07 2004 @ 09:13 PM EDT
- I'm suspicious - Authored by: Ed Freesmeyer on Sunday, August 08 2004 @ 02:56 AM EDT
- I'm suspicious - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 08 2004 @ 03:40 AM EDT
- I'm not - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 08 2004 @ 04:28 AM EDT
- Software, wot software? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 08 2004 @ 06:16 AM EDT
- Software, wot software? - Authored by: Dashing Leech on Sunday, August 08 2004 @ 07:46 AM EDT
|
Authored by: eamacnaghten on Saturday, August 07 2004 @ 09:18 AM EDT |
I am in Cambridge, UK. I have written to my MEP on the issue, I have
talked to my MP(Anne Campbell) on the issue.
The problem is that
this issue is not foremost in their minds. What they tend to do is to go to the
civil servants, who are meant to be experts, and ask them.
Unfortunately
what seems to have happened is that these civil servants have been convinced
that unless UK - and Europe - adopt silly US style patent legislation
significant investment in a lucrative software industry in the country simply
will not occur. They beleieve this despite their is absolutely no evidence of
this. I suspect strongly that Microsoft and other such corporates are more than
just partially responsible for seeding this attitude.
Also unfortunately the
UK patent office is not above distorting the real facts a little, an example can
be found in their
FAQ.
I have found the most successful way of highlighting the idiocy of
software patents is by example. Microsoft's patent on the Double Click
(USPTO patent no 6,727,830) is a good one
to use - especially early in the conversation.
Also - please let me point
out the web site of the Federation of Freedom for
Information Interchange.
What is needed (in Europe) for as many people
as possible to contact their elected representatives, it does not matter if at
local, national or european level, and to draw attention to the issues and point
out the rocks that the ship is being navigated towards. Although Software
Patents are encumbent in the US too it will not harm to do the same thing their.
Also - if Europe does not implement Software Patents it will be good for the US
too as that would provide incentive to sort out the mess there.
If you
contact your Councillor, MP, MEP, Congressman, Senate rep etc remember - keep it
clean, keep it polite, keep it informative and constructive and keep it helpful.
Nothing is gained by idiotic zealotary and a lot can be lost.
Web Sig: Eddy Currents [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jbeadle on Saturday, August 07 2004 @ 10:06 AM EDT |
... so PJ can find -em.
Thanks,
-jb [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 07 2004 @ 11:11 AM EDT |
Innocent 3rd party users of products and software can't possibly begin to
understand this stuff... if the judges and lawyers and everyone else can't
figure it out.
Even Darl is confused!
This is why the LAWS OF AGENCY combined with CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW will
prevail in any court case against innocent 3rd party users (commercial or
individual)! It's so complicated that when you buy ANYTHING these days (that
involves a product, and most products including children's Teddy Bears that
talk, use software and some kind of computer to execute some feature of the
product), so when you do buy anything... there is no way to know if the product
does not violate a patent. AND since users of Teddy Bears are not going to pay
OSRM $150,000 for insurance... CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS and LAWS OF AGENCY and
any JURY, will NOT LET INNOCENT 3rd PARTY USERS be HARMED by PATENT or COPYRIGHT
claims against them by the lawyers for the owners of such IP.
This is true for commercial and individual users who just buy something software
related from a manufacturer, programmer, distributor, retailers, or a web site!
Software is software... innocent consumers are innocent consumers.
OSRM should have no market for thier offerings to any commercial or individual
consumer, however, they might have a market in the vendor area only![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 07 2004 @ 12:33 PM EDT |
Since the patent applicant must provide prior art that impacts or limits a
patent's scope, and because defeating or defending a patent is expensive; let
the patent office issue patents regularly. However; if a patent is challenged,
and defeated, make the patent holder pay the challenger's legal fees. Then only
truly significant applications will be sought, or their patents litigated. This
is a fair approach because the (original) reason for obtaining a patent is to
benefit from it. Along with the benefit goes the cost of defense.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kawabago on Saturday, August 07 2004 @ 01:05 PM EDT |
While I wholeheartedly support prohibition of software patents these arguments
are still mostly opinion. In order to appeal to lawmakers we must put forth an
argument based on facts that cannot be disputed. We must also attack the
arguments supporting software patents to show their fallacy. I think it would
take a combination of lawyers, politicians and software experts to build an
argument that is unassailable. If we don't have a central repository to build
this argument we should create one.
Of course, that's just my opinion.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 07 2004 @ 02:59 PM EDT |
Hmm... maybe not since their mathematicians
disappeared ;)
RS [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 07 2004 @ 03:31 PM EDT |
At one point, where patent law is concerned, I followed
the conventional
wisdom of "if it's broken, quite possibly
all it needs is an adjustment to
fix". The main reason I
followed that was due to the fact that there's plenty
of
large businesses that, I suspect, would fight tooth and
nail about having
patents removed completely from
software. That fight, again as I suspected,
would lead to
a settlement whereby each side gives some ground.
After
reading the article, I've come to the conclusion
that it's quite possible that
the only solution is to
remove Patents where the software industry is
concerned.
I don't have either the knowledge or wisdom to know the
outcome of that battle. I do, however, suspect it's going
to be a hard battle
compared to other battles the software
industry has been involved in.
RS [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: blacklight on Saturday, August 07 2004 @ 04:36 PM EDT |
"I believe even SCO accepts the credentials of MIT." PJ
Never, ever either presume or assume anything about SCOG, their pinhead CEO or
their slimeball management team.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: stevem on Saturday, August 07 2004 @ 06:37 PM EDT |
This is an interesting one for Australians, and unfortunately IMHO, is being
caught up in politics vs Right/Wrong.
I did a fairly brief analysis in the Andrew Morton Speech thread (from memory)
that looked at who/what how etc that some may find interesting.
The main problem for us in the IT field is that most Australians don't really
care about the IP issues. Their concerns are more related to impacts on the PBS
(Pharacutical Benefits Scheme) and the amount of American sourced TV shows we
could be forced to endure.
I personally, generally, prefer British shows - sorry :-)
The whole FTA with the USA exercise has been a fascinating exercise in the
observation of politics. What's good for Australia is almost irrelevant to the
two major political parties and their sparring matches for point scoring in the
lead up to the next Federal election.
Sigh. Too jaded and too cynical.
- SteveM
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Tim Ransom on Saturday, August 07 2004 @ 08:17 PM EDT |
as this 30 year old
cartoon will attest.
--- Thanks again,
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- 'Twas ever thus - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 07 2004 @ 08:49 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 07 2004 @ 09:40 PM EDT |
A simplified version of why patents exist would be governments trying to help
local businesses (ie small startups) get a foothold into a business area to make
money, employ people and the government in return collects taxes on profits.
OK, so far it doesn't sound bad, right? So where is the problem. The problem
is that big companys are filing thousands of patents per year to keep the small
businesses from forming/starting. Or businesses are forming/created for the sole
purpose of filing patents to bring litigation against other businesses. In the
first case the government experiences a decrease in tax revenue per patent
filed. This lowers the percieved "Value" of patents to the
government. In the second case the government experiences an increase in costs
due to the increased legal pleadings and time used in courtrooms.
------------------------------------------------------
So here is my simple answer to help the government and
small businesses alike:
Allow only ONE patent per corporation/business entity that would last for 20
years. When that patent expires the business can register its new software or
widget for the next 20 years. A corporation/business may have only ONE patent
at a time. If a corporation/business wishes to register another patent, but
allready has a patent registered, they must donate the current patent to the
public domain before registering the new patent. This would increase the
"VALUE" of patents to the government while reducing costs.
Well whats your opinion of this idea? - go ahead and flame me if you want, I
dont profess to be a good businessman or anything else.
IANAL
IAJACW (I am just a computer wizard)
DACII (to lazy to register)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: leopardi on Saturday, August 07 2004 @ 10:03 PM EDT |
PJ, did you also get a chance to look at the
Linux Australia position
paper on the FTA?
It says, in particular, that:
Producer/consumer balance of IP rights in general was
clearly not considered
in Chapter 17 of the FTA. The only
balance mentioned is "between rights of
authors, on the
one hand, and rights of performers and producers of
phonograms, on the other hand". (What about the rest of
us?).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 07 2004 @ 10:05 PM EDT |
Some interesting concerns have been asked on Linuxtoday about the legality of
what OSRM is doing. PJ, seeing as you are their representative, could you
forward these questions to the OSRM directors so they can answer
them.
First, there are concerns about how OSRM is representing their
indemnification "product".
The OSRM web site has a legal
disclaimer that says in part:
OSRM’s indemnification offering and services do
not constitute an insurance product and should not be considered
insurance. No description or representation of OSRM’s indemnification should
be considered to be a solicitation for purchase of insurance.
The same OSRM
web site has an OSRM press release that says:
Results of First-Ever Linux
Patent Review Announced, Patent Insurance Offered by Open Source Risk
Management
A troubling thing about nearly all of the articles about OSRM is
the frequent use of the terms insurance, financial coverage, or indemnification.
Second, it seems OSRM is not legally empowered to offer
software indemnification. In fact, it might be illegal for OSRM to claim they
will offer indemnification or insurance of any kind.
The voters
and lawmakers in most states have enacted legislation that curtails that sort of
freedom, and provides for regulation and oversight of the insurance industry.
The Forbes article quoted OSRM founder Egger as saying "OSRM will skirt U.S.
regulations on insurers by locating an affiliate company offshore, but won't go
into details."
I don't see much point in Forbes, E-Week, UNC at Chappel
Hill, or Linuxtoday providing bandwidth to either condemn, endorse, or defend a
small fly-by-night private enterprise that has announced an intention to go
offshore to avoid our laws and the government regulators that are charged with
public oversight responsibilites for the domestic insurance industry.
OSRM
is apparently going offshore to avoid the provisions of US law, and they want
others to accept the risks, while they hold the
contributions.
Third, it seems the lead counsel for OSRM is
not the crackshot he's been made out to be. He has never served as lead counsel
for patent related casework. He only has 3 years professional experience. Is it
truly appropriate for a person with such minimal experience to be the frontman
for what amounts to multiple millions of dollars of funds to protect Linux? Why
hasn't this task been delegated to lawyers with far greater legal experience and
knowledge of free software (eg Eben Moglen, counsel for the FSF)?
PJ, these
are serious concerns. OSRM is asking for our money so they can provide legal
protection for users of Linux. The pricing is so astronomical that only the
largest companies can afford to pay OSRM. Yet at the same time, OSRM is
attempting to circumvent US insurance laws by going offshore. Is this really the
best way to protect Linux? Perhaps Egger has the best of intentions but is
simply in over his head. It seems if he's trying to circumvent the legal system
by funneling offshore insurance, then he will simply create more problems for
customers of OSRM and cast even greater shadows over the legality of free
software. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 08 2004 @ 12:23 AM EDT |
In a previous story, AllParadox speculates (interestingly) about a possible
sequence of IBM moving thru summary judgement... (IIRC he predicts Lanham Act
next)
One of IBM's Counterclaims is that SCO by distributing Linux on terms other than
the GPL and after it's GPL license has been terminated, is infringing IBM's
copyrights in JFS, etc.
It would seem to me, that if successful, that this would have some nice effects:
(1) stop SCO distributing Linux to support their Caldera customers, (2) show SCO
is infringing IBM's IP (not vice-versa), and (3) probably put the kibbosh on
their little license scheme.
Now I realize PSJ in favor of IBM on CC10, would also result in (3).
However the advantages of PSJ on this counterclaim, would still include (1) and
(2)
It is also seems to me that the the discovery required for this claim is
limited: (1) is SCO distributing it, (2) does SCO have a valid license (let em
try to show something other than the GPL), (3) does IBM have a valid copyright
in these materials. I expect IBM can deal with (3), and for (1) we have public
statements from SCO (e.g. Stowell in about August last year) saying they are
distributing Linux only to existing SCO customers.
Well the other point is that presumably SCO's defense is based on unclean hands
by IBM. Now if IBM's Linux activities are shown not to infringe SCO's
copyrights (the pending issue on CC10), then presumably that goes out the
window?
So, assuming IBM get PSJ on CC 10, why not include this as a next step?
Comments, thoughts, opinion, conjecture?
Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 08 2004 @ 03:05 AM EDT |
I know that this isn't the correct thread but being the most recent, I thought I
stood a better chance of someone reading it and replying: It seems to me than
IBM "did an M$ shafting job" on SCO with project Monterey. That is
they went into partnership and then ended it and walked away with everything,
leaving SCO worse off (how many M$ partners can tell a similar story). That is
of course assuming SCO had rights to anything in the first place. So my question
is, if this is true are we as a community endorsing IBM's actions by being so
supportive of them ( or is that so anti SCO ) and how do we know that when IBM's
interest are at stake that they wont casually "do an M$ shafting job"
on us.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: vortex on Wednesday, August 11 2004 @ 01:46 PM EDT |
... back in 2000, when Edward Welbourne was asked, I gather by
someone in the patent office, questions about patents on computer software and
ways of doing business.
For the record, this was in reply
to a patent office public consultation (you know, one of those occasions when
bureaucracy asks for public comment on its plans, then ignores everyone that
disagrees with them ...), as noted in the link on my (yes, vortex is Edward
Welbourne) general
page on "Intellectual Property". --- The citizens of the United
States must effectively control the mighty commercial forces which they have
themselves called into being. -- Theodore Roosevelt.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|