digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

How To Kill The Patent Threat Against Linux

raiden.net — If Linux is ever to be safe from prosecution, we have to stop this blatant patent trolling today!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • schestowitz, on 10/17/2007, -5/+24It's not about the 235 figure (which Microsoft possibly made up), but also about proxies that Microsoft uses to absorb the PR residue. What is needed is a system reform.
    • Philluminati, on 10/17/2007, -0/+12That's exactly what he's saying. It doesn't matter who is trying to sue us. Everyone will take a pot shot if we can't defend ourselves and were competition to their business.
    • InetRoadkill, on 10/17/2007, -0/+17I would hope that since congress is in the mood to revise patent law that they consider adding restrictions to patent trolling. The problem with patent trolling extends beyond just linux. If the original inventor has largely abandoned his patent thru neglect or by failing to develop a commercial product, it should be illegal for trolling firms to buy the patent with the sole purpose of litigation.
    • bias, on 10/17/2007, -17/+4errrmm, if people use Open Source code, they have to release all the source code..... if someone use the code of Close Source software, they can't ask them to pay? It wouldn't sound hypocritical if you are totally Free & Open, but you are not, you are requiring people to release their source code if they uses yours. Open Source can have GNU license to protect you but Close Source should have nothing to protect them? Is that what you saying?
      • madhellrazor, on 10/17/2007, -12/+2I agree to bad everyone seems to just dig you down
        • bias, on 10/17/2007, -9/+2That's what they do when you show them the reality, either call you trolling or digg you down, never a logical answer.
      • MonkeyMCSE, on 10/17/2007, -1/+11Unfortunately, you don't have a clue. You can build on top of Open Source, but if YOU USE the code provided by someone else, you release your code. If you code a module to work on that code then you can do whatever you want with your own code. IF YOU CREATE THE CODE WITHOUT USING SOMEONE ELSE'S CODE, IT'S YOURS. If you use any of their code you release yours under their licensing terms of course. It's not hard to understand, it's just beyond some of you.
        • bias, on 10/17/2007, -10/+1LOL that's exactly what I'm talking about. No one said you can't build upon Open Source, what I was saying is that while you are having the GNU license protecting your Open Source softwares, Close Source software is protected by the patent law. The point is if you want to get rid of patent, you should first get rid of your GNU license, and stop being a hypocrite. What if someone used your open source code and not releasing their code? are you going to sue him?
          • GMorgan, on 10/17/2007, -1/+7No you are being idiotic. Copyright law protects closed source software just as it protects Free software. Patents are a simple monopoly that do not protect implementations because they do not require an implementation. Very different things.
        • MonkeyMCSE, on 10/17/2007, -1/+4Well that's what they are saying, you shouldn't have patents on software, there are too many ways to make "Hello World". Software should be copyright, and not patented, patents normally deal with the way you physically do something, like a hinge on a door. There is no reason to get rid of the GNU license, the OSS any of those licenses, the creator of said code decides on his license and he can do as he/she wants with his or her code. You sir are the hypocrite, because you don't understand the difference between copyright and patents is not my fault, you have the ability to read and understand the difference dont you? Closed source is NOT protected by patent law anymore than open source is, simply because it's closed. Take for example MS on numerous occasions, their code isn't open but they have been sued how many times now? How many of those cases have they won, oh lets see, maybe 2%. The license you write your software under has NOTHING to do with patents, it's the companies who perceive you doing things the way they have patented.
        • bias, on 10/17/2007, -3/+3Well I never said I'm always right, of course license & patent are different things, but what I see is;
          1.) You put a GNU license on your software, people used your code and not releasing their source code and use it to make profit. what do you do?
          2.) Someone copied a patented software to make profit. what do you do?
          You sue them.
          It's not that patent system is perfect, but it's hypocritical coming out from you OSS freaks. You want everything patent free and do whatever you like, but at the same time you use GNU License to force people who use your code to do what you like (releasing the source code to everyone). If GNU is "totally" free like FreeBSD, then I wouldn't say a friggin' word about it.
          There will always be abuses on everything, you can't just throw away everything whenever someone abuse it.
          • Philluminati, on 10/17/2007, -1/+31) You put ANY license on code be it GNU or Windows EULA all people MUST obey it because it's your code. Microsoft's restriction that you can't redistribute it? Fine! Break that and you deserve to be sued. Everybody is on the same page here, be it Apple or FSF, licences are licences.
            2) Some copied patented software to make a profit. what do you do? Ask yourself why there is a patent here. Is this genuinely novel or is this just some ploy to stop level playing field?

            It's not hippocritical. We chose not to use patented software in Linux so we can only lose patent cases. Patents in I.T. are extremely weak and very questionable. This discussion is how we can defend against companies who buy patents for the purpose of litigation. It's frankly wrong.
          • Blazeix, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1bias, the open source community (at least the mainstream) isn't saying that people shouldn't sue other people over software. Software Patents patent an 'idea', while licenses license the actual code.
            For example, somebody could patent an idea like 'moving the cursor' without doing any work, and then sue anybody who writes any code that moves a cursor, even if the party being sued wrote all the code themselves. Its these types of patents the OSS community doesn't like. You can't patent a software product, you patent the idea behind the software product, regardless of the implementation.
            With a license, somebody could write code to make a cursor move, and then if anybody used your code line-for-line, then the author of the code could sue. If somebody wrote different code to make a cursor move, then they would be fine and wouldn't be able to be sued. So license 'controls' the use of the specific code implementation, and has no say over the idea.
    • Stonekeeper, on 10/17/2007, -0/+4That 235 number. They mistook "number of patents" for "number of webcams" that cool pipe-wielding french dude got working.
  • Jorlwind, on 10/21/2007, -1/+29"The second, and far simpler approach is to change patent law."
    Sure. Simpler, If you own a couple of congressmen that is.
    • GMorgan, on 10/17/2007, -0/+5Simple in reality, complex in politics.
    • Randinn, on 10/16/2007, -0/+3Way more than a couple....
    • theendlessnow, on 10/16/2007, -0/+2Couple of congressmen and the Speaker of the House. For a starter....

      Then there's the Senate....
    • sonicEd, on 10/16/2007, -0/+2I agree, I think the first solution is easier. I think most of these patents would be very difficult to defend.
  • adml_shake, on 10/17/2007, -0/+13You need to have more cash then the person you're fighting against.
  • vwvan, on 10/16/2007, -8/+2the sky is falling.
  • 7of7, on 10/17/2007, -39/+5Or the people who are writing code for Linux could just stop stealing ideas and try to think of an original one for once.
    • Kingster, on 10/17/2007, -1/+15Is there a specific example that you'd care to cite? Or are you truly just being a troll?
      • bias, on 10/17/2007, -15/+1like all those clones you guys always talk about? it even show in the app manager in your distribution that this is a clone of Windows application, it is your only friggin' idea to call them clones to attract Windows users, to copy the softwares they usually use so they can switch easily, mostly design & user interface. Now you are calling people troll for stating the obvious, just because you are blinded by some stupid "software religion" *****?
        • sirhomer, on 10/17/2007, -1/+4Hello bias (or whom it may concern),

          This is Bob Ritcher from IP Innovations LLC. We have reason to believe you are violation of US Patent #11,888,998, or "Trolling Linux articles on Digg". We ask that you cease and desist from this behavior as well as pay as a royalty in the amount of $10,000 per past offense. If you refuse, we have no choice but to presume legal action on the behalf of our intellectual property. Please note that we take our ideas very seriously. You have 14 days to reply to this message.

          Senior Inventor
          Bob Ritcher
          IP Innovations LLC
    • sexybobo, on 10/17/2007, -2/+9I hope that is sarcasm. They already have proof of prior art for the current suit against them. So they do have original ideas the main problem is every OS needs a few essential parts to make them work properly and microsoft and apple have patents on them.
      • PA42, on 10/17/2007, -7/+5"So they do have original ideas the main problem is every OS needs a few essential parts to make them work properly and microsoft and apple have patents on them."

        Doesn't that mean that they stole really good ideas from MS and Apple? Since MS and Apple came up and patented ideas so good that they are now "essential parts" of an OS?
        • srg13, on 10/17/2007, -2/+2Neither Microsoft of Apple (with some exceptions) came up with these things. We're talking about things like windows, double clicking, menus, the desktop etc. which are basic features in any OS... Some of these have been patented, but like many software patents, they're very obvious and shouldn't be patentable.
      • FutureGuy, on 10/17/2007, -8/+3So you are implying that Linux does infringe on MS and Apple patents, that are now essential parts of an OS, right?
      • Randinn, on 10/17/2007, -1/+5Lucky all you need to point to is Xerox for prior art in those instances...
    • objectcode, on 10/16/2007, -4/+12microsoft is all original /sarcasm
      • bias, on 10/17/2007, -7/+1You mean microsoft is not original, so you don't have to be? thereby admitting Linux is stealing ideas?
    • sirhomer, on 10/17/2007, -5/+11Hello 7of7 (or whom it may concern),

      This is Bob Ritcher from IP Innovations LLC. We have reason to believe you are violation of US Patent #11,888,998, or "Trolling Linux articles on Digg". We ask that you cease and desist from this behavior as well as pay as a royalty for all past offensives. If you refuse, we have no choice but to presume legal action on the behalf of our intellectual property. You have 14 days to reply to this message.

      Senior Inventor
      Bob Ritcher
      IP Innovations LLC
      • bias, on 10/17/2007, -11/+1well, call people trolling if you can't answer a question is always to best way out.
        • Phocion55, on 10/17/2007, -0/+5He must have picked that up from you and your MS cohorts.
        • bias, on 10/17/2007, -6/+1I don't care about MS or whatever, it just happen to have the most quality softwares & games (third party, not talking about MS) in one of 3 different OS choices. Also I'm not really picking on Linux / Open Source, I'm just picking on you "Software Religious" creeps who think Open Source = Perfect. Please take this Personal, it's really only about you fundamentalists software worshipping sheeps; Linux / Open Source is just another OS / Software Development method.
        • sirhomer, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1dupe
        • MonkeyMCSE, on 10/16/2007, -1/+2Why do we have to be fundamentalists? Can't we just be trashing the garbage that comes from MS only users complaining how Linux doesn't do this or that? I guess it's ok for MS to throw out anything they want but if we take a stand and say what we know or have seen we all of a sudden become fundamentalists. I guess the pot is calling kettle for a clean up on aisle 5. What does that make you? I guess since you're trying to push the buttons of others and have no "bias" you could be considered a troll eh? Maybe when you grow up and act like a grown up you can finally be perceived as one. Until then we'll just all point and laugh at you.
        • sirhomer, on 10/17/2007, -1/+3Dude just look at bias past history. All he or it does is go on the Linux section of Digg and troll every article. He is really bad at it too. Bias's doesn't seem to ever had a single comment Dugg up.
  • robwilkens, on 10/17/2007, -19/+2The best solution: Before you implement anything in linux, make sure you're not violating a patent. Also, if you find something infringing on a patent, change how it is done.
    • sirhomer, on 10/17/2007, -0/+9So basically hire a lawyer to examine your code and make sure it's not violating one of nine million patents (with hundreds of thousands having to do with software specially)? Just a proper patent search can cost thousands of dollars.
    • Philluminati, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1There are 6 million lines of code to read
  • TheSwashbuckler, on 10/17/2007, -0/+40The "patent threat" to Linux is actually pretty minor. There's a reason ol' Stevie Ballmer hasn't discussed specifics of any of the patents that Linux allegedly infringes. It's because Stevie knows the vast majority of them can't stand up to significant scrutiny.

    Then there's the backlash possibility, not from the open source community, but from the likes of IBM and Sun, who both have significant patent portfolios and who could turn around and claim that Windows infringes their patents. It's a legal morass.

    Patent litigation is a bit like a nuclear weapons arsenal - the threat seems scary, but you don't want to use either of them because of the unknown things that might result.
    • canthraxp, on 10/18/2007, -2/+8This is typical Microsoft FUD. Accusing of minor stuff but the headlines go like "MICROSOFT SUES LEENUCKZ" to scare linux (server) customers.
    • init100, on 10/18/2007, -1/+1"Patent litigation is a bit like a nuclear weapons arsenal - the threat seems scary, but you don't want to use either of them because of the unknown things that might result."

      Except for patent trolls like IP Innovation LLC. They have no products, all they do is sue people. Patent retaliation does not work on them, so they are more analogous to nuclear terrorists.
  • noseeme, on 10/18/2007, -0/+17Is there a publicly available list of the patents Microsoft claims are infringed?
    • gquaglia, on 10/17/2007, -0/+18Nope and blowhard Balmer won't say which ones they are.
    • chris9902, on 10/17/2007, -0/+19Microsoft (along with millions of other companies) own thousands (maybe millions) of patents. You could spend the rest of you life in a court room and still have no idea what you've done wrong. That's why software patents need to die.
    • rogerbly, on 10/17/2007, -1/+10No. If a specific list was provided, all the alleged infringing code would quickly be changed/fixed in 3 months. This is a FUD PR strategy, and a smart one, by MS.
    • JQP123, on 10/16/2007, -0/+3"... all the alleged infringing code would quickly be changed/fixed in 3 months."

      For about the dozenth time, it's not a simple matter of changing a few lines of source code. Functionality is what a patent addresses; not source code. About the only sure way to "fix it" is to remove the functionality.
    • EbilPhish, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2"For about the dozenth time, it's not a simple matter of changing a few lines of source code. Functionality is what a patent addresses; not source code. About the only sure way to "fix it" is to remove the functionality."

      A lot of the functionality will be very specific however, for instance truetype fonts cant have cleartype antiliasing. There is however font hinting instead which does exactly the same thing just differently. you could patent a specific cpu scheduler but you couldn't patent scheduling itself.

      Secondly there is also the case of prior art, for instance MS have patented the ribbon interface but this was done before in Blender.
  • JasonCox, on 10/17/2007, -21/+5"we have to stop this blatant patent trolling today"
    Or you can stop violating patents. Someday Microsoft will release a list (and they WOULD have to do this before starting a lawsuit) and on that day you can go in and remove all offending code.

    Problem solved.
    • Iriel, on 10/17/2007, -0/+11The problem with Microsoft and many other patent trolling companies is that they buy patents for technologies that have been in use for years (possibly even a decade or more). The courts don't like overturning these patents because it shows weakness in their system, so we're stuck with mega-corps like Microsoft getting patents on navigating hyperlinks by pressing tab, regardless or prior art.
    • GMorgan, on 10/17/2007, -1/+8No on that day is when we produce a list of prior art that covers every patent on the list and then stick our finger up to MS.
      • srg13, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Don't those patents have to be invalidated by a court? That could be expensive and tricky, but it would be excellent if Google, Red Hat, IBM etc could do that...
    • init100, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1"Someday Microsoft will release a list (and they WOULD have to do this before starting a lawsuit) and on that day you can go in and remove all offending code."

      A better solution is just to move all F/OSS development offshore, e.g. to Europe. The US can suck Ballmer if they want to keep software patents, I don't care.
  • zachlac, on 10/17/2007, -14/+2It's always easy to paint the Big Guy as the evil one...and I'm not saying that Microsoft is valid in their claims...but it's possible that Linux actually does infringe on a few patents. I'm not saying that Linux is ripping off Microsoft or anything like that. If it's true that they aren't at fault, then this whole thing will work itself out. If they did violate patents, then they can simply make some changes and continue (since there's nobody to really sue on the Open Source side). A lot of fuss about nothing...
    • rsvguy, on 10/17/2007, -1/+6It's up to Microsoft to say what patents Linux infringes.
      If they're not willing to be specific, then how are the Linux community supposed to know?
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 10/17/2007, -0/+8It is possible. It's possible that Microsoft even has some good patents that Linux is infringing (as opposed to many of the BS software patents that awarded today). But when Stevie won't tell anyone what those patents are, he loses what little credibility he have started with.
    • JQP123, on 10/16/2007, -0/+2"If they did violate patents, then they can simply make some changes and continue (since there's nobody to really sue on the Open Source side)."

      A few facts (as I understand them):

      Many (if not most) patents don't address *how* something is done, the pertinent issue is whether it is or has been done. "Making some changes" after the fact has little effect.

      Patent laws addresses anyone who has benefitted from unlicensed technology. This rules out any Open Source coders who don't make any money but it leaves Open Source distributors and *users* holding the bag, particularly business users who earn money using Open Source software. Not a big deal for coders but potentially a big deal for others.
  • codehkr77, on 10/17/2007, -22/+0Lets see...
    Linux community financial backing = made up of chump change from donations
    Microsoft backing = around $200 billion

    I think I will put my money on microsoft.
    • sexybobo, on 10/17/2007, -0/+8red hat and novel are large companies these aren't distros made by a small groups of people relying on donations and their are a lot of lawyers that would take on these cases for free because of the publicity they will get from beating microsoft also if IBM or the like steps in (they make a killing off linux and dont have much to do with their law team since sco is bankrupt) it will be a easy case.
    • objectcode, on 10/17/2007, -0/+12put money on SCO while you are at it
    • Gudeldar, on 10/17/2007, -0/+10Linux backing = IBM = $160 billion.
      • Sketchcast, on 10/17/2007, -0/+5Not to mention that if the ***** really hits the fan you can damned well bet that Google will step into the ring.
        • arbulus, on 10/17/2007, -0/+4It really goes back to the nuclear weapons theory: one country fires a missile, they all fire them. Same with these software patent lawsuits: one person sues, they all sue.
    • Phocion55, on 10/18/2007, -0/+7Every time an MS sympathizer makes a post, I lose a little more faith in humanity.
  • InetRoadkill, on 10/17/2007, -1/+23Any patent which has fallen into the hands of a patent trolls should be declared invalid. The reason is that patents are required to be 'a useful and novel device or process'. If the patent fails to take hold in the commercial marketplace, that should be evidence that the patent has failed in its usefulness as required and should therefore be considered invalid.
    • stevedclarke, on 10/16/2007, -0/+4Fully.
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2LOL!

      That's silly.

      Think of it this way, if any patent held by a so called patent troll must not be useful, then it follows that no one could infringe on such a patent - because it's not useful.
    • sonicEd, on 10/17/2007, -2/+2Sorry Roadkill, that's just wrong.
    • InetRoadkill, on 10/17/2007, -0/+5Not really wrong. The whole purpose of the patent system is to reward an inventor for his creativity. In return, the public enjoys the benefits of an advancement in technology. By using a patent as a basis to harass and litigate denies the public the benefits of the invention and furthermore harms the public interest by stifling innovation.

      A patent is a two-way street. The inventor enjoys the monetary fruits of his idea and the public enjoys the benefits of the resulting innovation. When a patent no longer serves the public interest (or in the case of patent trolling, actually harms the public interest), it violates a public trust and should be held invalid.
  • azprofessional, on 10/17/2007, -5/+13Trolls on this subject will never cease to exist. They have something to lose or their addiction is non-transferrable to linux or they're dog turd maggots who survive on writing malware for Windows or something. Or they're one of Bill Gates muses or something, ***** trolling is only fun on dumb topics that somthing like South Park parodies.

    Trolling an alternative to Windows the 'Swiss cheese of Os' as far as simple everyday tasks go is indicative of people who will never have a lick of sexual contact with anyone but their owns hairy palms, and probably get beat up and ridiculed by the the every single entity in the world the minute they walk out of the basement.

    It's really easy to trivialize trolls when you imagine they look probably worse than the three nerds on the simpsons if they were crossbred with Bill Gates and an actual green drooling and pants ***** Troll.
    • azprofessional, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1and by this I don't mean the Patents themselves per say I mean the troll haters of anything non-windows.

      Troll is wonderful broad spectrum term for useless turd with a keyboard
    • arbulus, on 10/16/2007, -0/+5So you don't think resorting to ad hominem attacks isn't trolling? Do you really think that makes you look any better?

      Personal attacks are a sign that you have no valid counter argument. If you think that trashing patent trolls is wrong, then present a logical agrument to that end.
    • cawpin, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1Completely off topic, but what are you a professional of, and are you actually in AZ?
  • joelito, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1Coral Cache http://www.raiden.net.nyud.net/?cat=2&aid=319
  • PA42, on 10/17/2007, -2/+4Some thoughts:
    1) The article says that the answer is reform, but does not say what reforms. Some comments above me state that if a company doesn't make a product they shouldn't be able to sue, but this makes no sense and strengthens large companies with deep pockets, rather than small inventors and open source. The companies with the money to produce commercially viable products will just steal good ideas from small inventors who had vision, but not money.

    2) I don't think that companies outside of the "evil empire" will sue linux' distribution companies. There is limited financial gain since the companies do not have deep pockets. MS has an advantage to suing because it raises there market share. The average "patent troll" only looks to make quick money. Suing Redhat is hardly quick money.

    3) There seems to be a lot of bashing of the patent system, yet little understanding that without rewards for innovation, the computer revolution would not have necessarily occurred. It might have been only education institutions and dorks with computers, which would have meant worse hardware, software etc.

    Any thoughts?
    • JQP123, on 10/16/2007, -1/+1"Suing Redhat is hardly quick money."

      Why? How is suing Red Hat any different than say Microsoft or Apple, both of which IP Innovation has sued?
      • PA42, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3Here is the difference. In a patent infringement suit you can win 2 things 1) injunctive relief and 2) damages. Injunctive relief leads to licensing negotiations where the winner has an upper hand (i.e. the blackberry shut down last year). If red hat loses, they would have to pay up or shut down the infringing product and work around the patent. The open source community would quickly fix this problem (since the infringing code is likely open source). This makes them an unlikely target for trolls. The damages only go as far as the revenue generated from that feature. Redhat makes far less than Apple and microsoft and generates revenue from documentation and packages rather than the code which is open source. As such suing Apple and MS is far different from suing redhat from the prospective of a troll.

        I could come up with a whole bunch of other reasons if you are still curious.
      • JQP123, on 10/17/2007, -3/+1"I could come up with a whole bunch of other reasons if you are still curious."

        No, that was quite enough for me to ascertain that like so many other posters in this thread, you tend to confuse "patent" with "copyright".
        • daftman, on 10/16/2007, -1/+1Can you explain where he is confused between patent and copyright a little bit more detail then infantile 1 liner?
          If you can't then quietly accept that you have just being verbally raped.
      • PA42, on 10/17/2007, -2/+4@JQP123:
        you are particularly dimwitted. I know very intimately the difference between a patent and a copyright. Name one place where I confused patents and copyrights?
        Injunctive relief is the standard result of patent infringement. Damages are given in rare cases but have become more common since the Teleflex case.

        • daftman, on 10/17/2007, -1/+3He's known for 1 liner rebuttals. Asking him to clarify more than that would expose how dumb he is.
      • JQP123, on 10/17/2007, -1/+1"I know very intimately the difference between a patent and a copyright. Name one place where I confused patents and copyrights?"

        Ok, here for example:

        "The open source community would quickly fix this problem (since the infringing code is likely open source). This makes them an unlikely target for trolls."

        First, just for the sake of argument, let's say the patent involves a "user interface with multiple workspaces". Fixing this is not simply a matter of jiggling the source code. *Any* code that provides this functionality is still an infringement. The only sure fire fix is to remove the functionality altogether. This may not be so quick and easy without adverse effects on the product.

        Second, even if you take the drastic step of removing all "workspace" functionality, this does not absolve you of the past infringement that has already occurred over the years. You're still an easy target for patent trolls.
        • PA42, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2JQ
          I encourage you to read a bit more on patents. Work arounds are common in the software industry. The claims of these patents are often narrow and the patent only covers those claims, not the general idea of the patent's specification.
        • JQP123, on 10/17/2007, -2/+1"Work arounds are common in the software industry."

          So are licensing fees and settlement agreements. MS reportedly pays around 1 billion per year to keep it's IP house in order. Apple, Sun, Oracle, Adobe and others, they all pay. Everyone pays ... except Open Source.

          "The claims of these patents are often narrow and the patent only covers those claims, not the general idea of the patent's specification."

          In the current case, the patent is broader than most since the claim was originally filed by Xerox over 20 years ago at the very start of the PC revolution. It's going to be very interesting.
          • daftman, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3May be in less advance countries like the U.S but Europe don't suffer from this problem. So why do open source have to pay IF nobody can actually prove anything infringes patent? If we infringe it, we will remove it or work around. If we can't use double click, we can use single click. Big deal.
            The problem with Microsoft, Sun, Oracle is that THEY ACTUALLY DO infringe patents. No one has yet substantially prove that Linux infringes patent.

            You're logic is exactly the same as "I have to eat ***** here, so you have to as well" No doesn't work that way. You ate ***** because you were dumb enough to eat it.

            The current case can simple dismiss as prior art. Patent also have a life time. It is much shorter than copyright.
    • rocket777, on 10/17/2007, -1/+1Yes, repeal the law that allowed for software patents to begin with. The computer industry did just fine before that. In fact, it did exceptionaly well before software could be patented. Software copyright is another animal, and should be sufficient to protect a company from it's ideas being copied. Patents are a government monopoly, and we all know (or should know) that the government is ALL like FEMA.
  • shenfrancisco, on 10/16/2007, -1/+1I am not quite familiar with Linux, but I agree with your idea. By the way, there is a funny ad poster about Linux. Maybe that can illustrate something..
    http://www.linkinn.com/_New_LINUX_ad-chirica
    • stevedclarke, on 10/16/2007, -0/+3Maybe I'm being dense today, but what is it illustrating? Is it for or against?
  • raublekick, on 10/16/2007, -1/+6All this talk of "just change the code, problem solved!" and "stop infringing patents, problem solved!" just doesn't make sense.
    If a party claims patent infringement, but won't say what patents are infringed or what code is infringing what patents, how is any code supposed to be changed? This is the big problem here. Microsoft doesn't want the code to be changed, they want it to go away. Intimidation works a lot better for this than giving out examples.
    But all of the quick solutions also miss the point that the patents that may or may not be infringed can be pretty vague and lame, where the possibility of "this is an obvious computer feature, patent is null" can be set in place.
    If Linux developers are supposed to worry about each and every patent that is out there, then they might as well stop coding right now. Or at least stop coding anything that is interesting.
    I think TheSwashbuckler summed it up nicely. In the patent game, everyone is screwed.
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1"All this talk of "just change the code, problem solved!" and "stop infringing patents, problem solved!" just doesn't make sense."

      No, it doesn't. It's ignorance...
    • JQP123, on 10/16/2007, -1/+1"All this talk of "just change the code, problem solved!" and "stop infringing patents, problem solved!" just doesn't make sense."

      With a patent, the issue is funtionality, not code. Changing the code has no effect ... unless the change is to remove the functionality that the patent addresses. And even that may not totally absolve you for past infringement.
      • init100, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1"With a patent, the issue is funtionality, not code. Changing the code has no effect ... unless the change is to remove the functionality that the patent addresses."

        Many patents are concept patents, and cover functionality, but not all software patents are like that, There are also algorithm patents that cover one way of doing something. With those, infringing code can be changed to use a non-infringing method.
  • archer75, on 10/16/2007, -8/+2Microsoft doesn't even care about the patent threat. They just said some stuff and then pretty much dropped it while the linux community has been freaking out non stop. Shut up already.
  • RayDude, on 10/17/2007, -0/+10It doesn't matter. It will never matter. Who are they going to sue? Red Hat? Ubuntu? They'll never see a dime because there isn't a dime to be had. But more importantly, once the patent violations are shown, the code will be re-written in weeks to remove the violation. There will be a thousand volunteers helping change the architecture of the code to prevent patent violation. AND A GREAT DEAL OF INNOVATION WILL RESULT!

    But even if the code can't be changed, it doesn't matter. Even if Microsoft could stop Red Hat and all the other "unlicensed" linux vendors, linux itself will not go away and it won't be lead by the "licensed" vendors either. It will still be community run and it will continue to live on.
    The more big bucks try to stop it, the more it will thrive and the more people will flock to it because people just love facing adversity and rooting for the underdog.

    The reason is simple: linux is not a bunch of code to run an OS. Linux is a philosophy of community cooperation.

    This isn't about MS against Linux, this is about a single -- for profit -- company against a group of folks who love (live?) to code. MS is against Gnu, its against Linux, and its against BSD (even though the MS TCP/IP stack is BSD) because it can't control those things which are perceived as possibly cutting into MS's bottom line.

    A friend of mine (Mike Dr. Bizarro!) predicted that Windows 95 was zenith for MS. He was almost right. I think zenith was Windows XP. Because XP was the last mostly good OS they made and that's only because it was mostly Windows NT. Vista isn't mostly Windows NT and its as crappy as just about anything MS has ever produced (except for Windows ME). NT came from engineers who were picked up by MS from DEC. They knew how to code a stable OS. I think Vista proves that MS is not up to the task of creating a stable and secure OS and because Linux has been stable and secure for years and its usability has increased tenfold in the last five years more and more people are going to flock to it.

    Even game developers are starting to see a reason to port. And that's something I didn't think I'd see in this decade.

    Linux will live on, no matter what happens to the for profit distros.

    So stop worrying will you?

    Some day: there will only be free software.

    Raydude
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 10/16/2007, -1/+2"Who are they going to sue? Red Hat? Ubuntu? They'll never see a dime because there isn't a dime to be had."

      Actually, Red Hat is a very profitable company. According to Yahoo finance they have nearly $900M cash on the balance sheet and over $300M left over even if they paid off all their debt.

      Canonical (the company behind Ubuntu) is likely not profitable, but wouldn't you like to seize a competitor's assets and put them out of business?
      • Bonzodog, on 10/17/2007, -0/+5Canonical cannot be sued, you see, they aren't in the US and they aren't in the EU. They are in a non-country, called The Isle of Man, which holds a very strange and ancient status of Crown Dependency of The United Kingdom. There are no corporate taxes, and it's not technically in the EU. It has it's own ancient government called The Tynewald. It's a bit of a haven for IT companies. A lot of the Linux codebase is in fact of EU origin, and thus all these stupid laws do is prevent Linux from being used/distributed in the US. Outside of that, none of this applies, as we do not recognise Software Patents here. And Ubuntu could continue to be used and distributed regardless of what happens in the future, as it's unlikely that The Tynewald will ever recognise anything else the world does.
        • init100, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1"Canonical cannot be sued, you see, they aren't in the US and they aren't in the EU. They are in a non-country, called The Isle of Man"

          They are registered on the Isle of Man, but they are headquartered in London.
    • FredFredrickson, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1People are not going to convert to Linux because Microsoft takes them to court.
    • lkms, on 10/17/2007, -1/+0why exactly you think that Win2000 and XP ARE NT successors, and Vista isn't?
      Is Vista based on some other new kernel?
  • Ub3rg33k, on 10/16/2007, -1/+3I like how the article states its easier to change patent law than it would be to find prior art to invalidate a patent claim. Not only does it not make any suggestions as to what kind of change to patent law should take place, but this also strikes me as the more expensive and time consuming route. I would think just about any developer in the Linux/OSS community could be considered knowledgible enough to know if/where prior art would exist if they project is affected by such a claim. Finding it and posting it before it even hit the courts would do a lot to diffuse any legal action before it started. Trying to get a law changed is much more time intensive and expensive than the author makes it out to be.
    • PA42, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3both are very difficult routes. To invalidate a patent you must go to an administrative court where there is a strong presumption of validity of patents. As someone who works heavily with patents, I can tell you first hand that the success rate of invalidating a patent is very small. Everyone who is sued for patent infringement tries this, and rarely are they successful.
    • RevEng, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1I think the real meaning behind is point was that you can keep chasing and killing patent after patent, or you can change the system and stop the chase. Yes, changing the system would take a huge amount of effort, but continually fighting patent trolls would take an indefinite amount of effort.
  • animus, on 10/16/2007, -15/+1i wish linux would die permanently.
    • hollerith, on 10/16/2007, -0/+3Monkey-boy? Is that... you?
    • Phocion55, on 10/16/2007, -0/+2I believe SCO said the same thing. Oh wait........................
    • init100, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Don't hold your breath, or you would asphyxiate.
  • cyberflas, on 10/17/2007, -14/+2I hope microsoft wins and crushes linux so all you small dicked losers can stop posting useless articles about an os which sucks big time. if linux is so great how come it cant do anything without a stupid window to type in. BTW I talked to linus torvalds (aka the 50 year old virgin) and he said he wishes he never made such a crappy os.
    • clickbam, on 10/17/2007, -1/+6Iinus has children

      and you can't use it because you suck.
      • cyberflas, on 10/17/2007, -3/+1so he hired a mexican to make him kids big whoop wanna fight about it
    • Phocion55, on 10/17/2007, -2/+4Digg cyberflas up.

      I love it when Windows fanboys demonstrate how they aren't capable of creating anything that can be considered a rational thought.
      • shethinkmefunny, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Are you retarded?

        He's not incapable of creating a rational thought, he's spouting off preposterous ***** to get linux zealots' feathers ruffled up. He even made an f'ing family guy reference.

        All he's doing is making linux fanboys look like thin-skinned idiots, and doing a good job of it at that.
    • init100, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Get your facts straight. Linus Torvalds is certainly not 50 years old, and if he wished that he had never created Linux, he wouldn't be working on it every day.
  • hollerith, on 10/16/2007, -2/+5Why won't M$ show their code - guilt or embarassment? How about we look through M$ code for all the GPL their lazy engineers have 'borrowed'?
    • natenovs, on 10/17/2007, -1/+5because their code is their trade secret. they have no obligation to reveal their code per say, but they do need to prove there has been a violation
      • hollerith, on 10/16/2007, -0/+3Sorry my point was: 'Linux' et al could make just as ludicrous claims against Microsoft about patent infringements in their code. The onus is on them to prove they hadn't, just as it is currently on Linux to prove otherwise - if old monkey-boy ever got round to saying what patents were being infringed rather than just trying FUD. But they won't because it would be hoisting themselves by their own petard since they'd have to reveal all that they have stolen.
        • FredFredrickson, on 10/17/2007, -1/+2Is it possible for any discussion on Digg to happen without the word FUD cropping up?
          • shethinkmefunny, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Nay. 'FUD' is pseudo-intellectual chic this season.

            It's an easy to throw around abbreviation that makes people appear more knowledgable than they might actually be.
            Just accept it and wait for it to pass, like the whole emo/indie craze and mullets.
        • Mizerooskie, on 10/16/2007, -0/+0The code does not matter in an issue of patent infringement. It's the methodology that the code executes that is of material importance. Code is protected by copyrights, not patents.
    • JQP123, on 10/16/2007, -1/+2"Why won't M$ show their code - guilt or embarassment?"

      Probably embarassment. Unlike you, they understand that code has next to nothing to do with a patent and showing it would make them look just as foolish as you do by requesting it.
      • hollerith, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1Yes, yes, point taken that patent and copyright are separate issues in law to do with intellectual property however my general point is that if the international convict is going to play this game then when not hit them right back with similar nuisance lawsuits... yes sorry FUD FUD FUD. BTW how do we know its devoid of GPL code? I seem to remember the string 'Berkeley' appearing quite often in ms-dos. As for lazy - no those were all 'nearly-features' available 'real soon now'? Glad I don't use their crap any more.
    • theendlessnow, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1Microsoft has no reason to share their code, which, btw, is devoid of LInux/GPL/etc. software. Embarrassment? No more than any other piece of hidden software out there. Their "lazy" engineers are actually not all that lazy. Motivated? Not nearly so much as free software developers.
      • init100, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1"which, btw, is devoid of LInux/GPL/etc. software."

        You haven't looked very hard. The Microsoft Windows Services For UNIX (SFU) contains plenty of GPL code.
  • rogerbly, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200710112 ...
  • goffy59, on 10/16/2007, -1/+5I use windows, but I also use Linux. ***** all you trolls. Linux is more stable and efficient then windows could ever be. At least I don't need to restart after every.*****.software.update/install. At least when I install Linux I don't need to search for drivers, because oh wait; it detects every bit of hardware on all my computers in my house and automatically finds the driver for them. Can windows do this? No.... it cant; based on my experience of using windows ever since windows 3.1 and beyond(also DOS, but that doesn't count). Warcraft 3 tft(using opengl) 3 on Linux had about 130 more FPS then windows xp. No joke. Kind of weird. WINE some of the most amazing software out there.
    • FredFredrickson, on 10/17/2007, -4/+2I use WinXP and I hardly ever have to restart after system updates... what was the last version of Windows you used?
      • hollerith, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1LOL! First patch Tuesday updates almost always require a reboot - its the way its been designed. Perhaps you need to check your Windows XP Automatic Update settings to check your getting patches. It contained the Windows Malicious Code Removal update - Happy Power Downs!!!
  • kahrytan, on 10/18/2007, -4/+5What patent threats? All I hear from M$ is feud and lies. Call me when they got something credible.
  • FredFredrickson, on 10/18/2007, -8/+1Contrary to popular opinion here, the best way to avoid a patent lawsuit is to not use patented materials in the production of your software.
    • Phocion55, on 10/18/2007, -0/+7So then we eventually let MS rack up thousands and thousands of vague/obscure patents?

      90% of your software development life cycle will then be rifling through millions of pages of patents.

      How the hell are we supposed to get anywhere?

      This is simply stifling innovation at the cost of everyone else except Microsoft. But hell, that's their philosophy.
      • PA42, on 10/18/2007, -6/+2that's a very narrow view of the situation. Without strong patent protection innovation would be stifled because people and companies would not have the motivation to come up with truly unique and innovative computer processes.
        • arbulus, on 10/17/2007, -1/+4That is complete *****. People don't try to come up with anything new because they're afraid some troll is holding a bunch of patents waiting to sue anyone who comes up in the market. You don't call that stifiling?
        • PA42, on 10/17/2007, -3/+3@ arbulu
          There is no evidence to back that up. I am a supporter of open source. Whenever I use an open source product I donate to the developer, but forcing open source onto the world isn't any better than stifling open source. You, on the other hand, only seem to concern yourself with the open source world.
          Look at the business world. Every software developer has the same fears of being sued, yet the industry is moving forward faster than ever before despite the patent infringement threat and the increase in patent trolls. right there is proof that you theory about patent trolls is wrong.
          Without strong patent rights microsoft, Apple and every other software developer would stop spending money on R and D since they know that everything they do will be copied.
          • GMorgan, on 10/18/2007, -0/+9Actually the thing that lacks evidence is the perpetual claim that patents are needed to protect innovation. There is no evidence that innovation would be hurt without patents.
          • PA42, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2-Gmorgan
            Look at china, they just copy american and japanese ideas because this is cheaper than developing new ideas. The research jobs in china are for products aimed for countries with patent protection.
          • PA42, on 10/18/2007, -1/+2.
        • init100, on 10/18/2007, -1/+2There is no evidence that shows that software patents are necessary or even beneficial to society. There is plenty of evidence that they are actually detrimental to society. If patent protection for software would be necessary, why is the software business flourishing even in those parts of the world that do not recognize software patents?
    • RevEng, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1The problem with the lawsuits that Microsoft is threatening isn't that Linux is using patented processes, it's that they MAY be using patented processes. It's like saying, "The best way to avoid being charged with murder is to not murder somebody." If somebody accuses you of murder, whether you did or not, you're still being charged. This is the real problem Linux is facing right now. They could be entirely clean (likely they aren't, but they would be more than willing to fix it), but that still wouldn't keep big corporations and patent trolls from suing them and hoping for some hush money. For prior art, see the RIAA.
    • neko, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3Sorry to burst your bubble, but my company has patented the business method of "avoiding the use of patented materials in the development of a software product". We thought of that first, so you can't. We'll see you in court!
  • EasyEve, on 10/17/2007, -5/+1Nobody CARES!
  • mwalker05, on 10/17/2007, -2/+1this is as asinine as ford suing dodge because both of them make cars
    • shethinkmefunny, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Not exactly. it's like Ford suing Dodge for putting a clutch pedal on their manual transmissions.

      But I think the reason you're getting dugg down is because you made a car analogy. Relevant as they often are, car analogies are overused.
  • abigsmurf, on 10/16/2007, -1/+2I love how these articles assume that all 235 patents can be invalidated. It's hard enough to get 1 questionable patent invalidated, let alone 235. There's also an assumption that these patents actually have examples of prior art. Although the WIMP envoironment was lifted by MS and Apple off of Xerox, do people seriously believe that in in what, 10+ versions of windows, MS NEVER came up with an original feature not before seen in an OS and patented it and, that in their aim to create an OS that has functionality on par or exceeding Windows, linux never mimicked a patented feature?

    • MonkeyMCSE, on 10/16/2007, -0/+0I doubt anyone in his right mind would ever believe that, but when some blowhard mimics an OSPF potential list of violations, one has to wonder. I think most of us know that Balmer is nothing but hot air, and until something is done to prove that these allegations are for real, you have to take it at face value. As it is, it's pure bull until something is actually brought to the attention of a judge and/or a cease and desist order is filed towards any of the large Linux vendors. I'm sure there are some on both sides, but do you really think that Balmer wants to open that can of worms to public scrutiny? It would be suicide for MS in every way shape and form. Someone will eventually do it, not all businessmen are every smart, I just don't see MS doing it because they have a hard enough time with people going after them as it is. Why open yourself up to losing patents you have and risk others usin their patents against you when you open yours up. I think eventually one of these larger companies will end up fighting MS over Balmers mouth because it will hurt their business, and there are federal laws against such matters. If he does it enough someones going to show him where to put up or shut up.
  • Sinudeity, on 10/16/2007, -0/+0Just tell us what the infringements are, I'll call up my 1,000,000 man army
    of developers, and we'll fix it!
    • abigsmurf, on 10/18/2007, -2/+0Any patent infringements will be retro-active. It doesn't matter if you fix them quickly, millions will have still been using illegal software for years and will be liable for that.
      • Sinudeity, on 10/17/2007, -0/+0How do we know, whats wrong, if no one wants to tell us?
        Screw them.
  • eclectro, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3Actually the patent that red hat is being sued under expires in a year. I wouldn't change any software, because by the time the red hat case is decided it's not going to matter.
  • NedSlider, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2The article describes two ways to fight the patent threat - seek out prior art against all potentially threatening patents or to change patent law.

    I would propose a third alternative - innovate and put our ideas and innovations in the public domain now, then those ideas can't be patented by anyone. If you have some zany idea and detail it on a forum or mailing list, even if some guy from Microsoft or whoever had the idea before you and hasn't been exposed to your idea, it's prior art and no longer patentable if you disclose it first. Patents last for 20 years so it's only a matter of time before all the current patents die a natural death from old age (the current patent was granted in 1991 so only has 4 years left to run anyway). With the information superhighway at our fingertips, we can kill the legacy now for the next generation without there needing to be any change in the law (although that would still be a good thing).

    We have far more people at our disposal than any one company - surely we as an open source community can innovate faster and better than any single company, and ultimately that's what the likes of Microsoft are really scared of. They're just trying to sue us back into the stone ages as they know they can't compete with the sheer number of people involved in the open source community no matter how many people they employ.

    • Mizerooskie, on 10/16/2007, -1/+1There's a MAJOR hole in your plan. It is VERY easy for a company to "swear behind" a prior art reference if it hasn't been publicly disclosed for more than a year prior to the company filing a patent application. So the forum postings, etc. can very easily be invalidated as prior art.
      • NedSlider, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1They would have to provide validated proof, ie dated documents that are verifiable. I have no experience with software patents but I do have considerable experience with scientific patents, and there it would go to the earliest documented discovery in the discovering scientists lab book, which of course would be page signed, counter-signed and dated. Unless the person(s) claiming can show similar verifiable evidence of discovery then the prior art stands.
        • Mizerooskie, on 10/16/2007, -0/+0Nothing needs to be dated, I deal directly with software patents every day and have seen instances where an applicant will simply provide a signed declaration that accompanying documents were created prior to the prior art date. The dates on the documents can be redacted and do not need to be disclosed.
    • sonicEd, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1Mizerooskie is right, prior is is Patented art for the most part. Some exceptions, but they are easy to defeat.
  • cantormath, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1BRING IT ON!!!!! You can take my multi desktop user interface when you pry it from my cold dead hands.....
  • Denelson83, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Too bad there's a really strong patent lobby to deal with as well, and they have so much money they can stop any attempt at patent law reform from even reaching the floors of Congress.

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070612/172405.s ...
  • DaGeek, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Simple solution:
    Have IBM, Novel, etc. sell some patents to a Troll Beotch of their own and Nuke M$ by proxy.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.