What is Digg?88 Comments
- diggapleaze, on 10/12/2007, -5/+109it means that any parties infringing the patents (i.e. any entity employing DRM in their products) are liable to being sued by the patent holder (Alan Cox, employee of Red Hat). In a dream world fantasy of mine, Red Hat could basically sue Apple for iTunes DRM, the DVD consortium for DCSS, and Microsoft for PlaysForSure DRM. Hilarity ensues.
- diggapleaze, on 10/12/2007, -4/+60I first learned of these patents from Luis Villa's blogpost here: http://tieguy.org/blog/2007/01/04/alan-still-has-a-wicked-sense-of-humor/
I decided not to link to the blogpost(link above). I thought it would be rude to diggers not to link directly to the content, and rude to Luis to possibly destroy his blog via the digg effect :) So be kind to the link above and don't hammer it, here's the verbatim trancript of his blogpost for the curious:
***
A list of patents filed by Alan Cox (link http://www.freshpatents.com/Alan-Cox-Swansea-invdirc.php ). (Note that many of these are just applications and not yet granted.) (link http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html ) I’m particularly amused by the application for a patent on DRM. (Note that I can laugh because of Red Hat’s patent pledge.) Now I just need to find a site which will give me an RSS feed of patent applications filtered by assignee…
[Update later: it is clear from my comments that this post wasn’t clear. Let me restate: I think this is a good, or at least not bad thing- RH’s patent pledge makes it very clear that this will not be used against Free Software; and unlike many other mundane RH patents, this one could (hypothetically) be used against Real Bad Guys. I don’t think that it was bad for Alan, or RH, to apply for this patent in a defensive manner.]
License
This work is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License.
Luis Villa - capiCrimm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+52"I'm filing a patent for the word patent."
that's a trademark. - trogdoor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+43shhhhhhh. You were supposed to wait until AFTER this patent slipped though the cracks and was granted before bringing attention to it.
- Fordi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+36Ooh! A troll!
*scruffles its chin*
Who's a cute little trollie? - diggapleaze, on 10/12/2007, -6/+32not intrinsically. That's like saying copyright of source code is bad under all circumstances. Copyright is bad only when used in a bad way. We have the GPL as an example of source code copyright being used in a good way.
Whether we like to admit it or not, software patents are here to stay. Either we can sit around and let the FOSS community get sued out of existence, or begin (as IBM, Novell, and Red Hat have been doing) assimilating a repertoire of defensive patents for the sake of Mutually Assured Destruction in the case of...oh, I don't know...Microsoft suing Linux users for infringing on Microsoft intellectual property. Don't forget that Ballmer said "you could say anybody who has got Linux in their data center today sort of has an undisclosed balance sheet liability..." (link http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/archives/108806.asp ).
It's FUD like that which makes *some* software patents, when used intelligently and for the promotion of open technology, a very *good* thing.
Think of it as a hack on United States intellectual property law. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25Realistically it will not be granted. The US protects commercial interests as a high priority. If it were though, it means DRM would have to be licensed through an open source advocate. Hopefully to the extent that is becomes too costly for the industy to continue with.
Sadly, this is a pipe dream. - diggapleaze, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24equally ridiculous patents have been granted before. examples:
Amazon one-click shopping http://cse.stanford.edu/class/cs201/projects-99-00/software-patents/amazon.html
Creative's patent on nested menus for portable audio devices http://www.macnn.com/articles/06/05/15/creative.sues.apple/
NTP's patent on push email http://www.cbronline.com/article_feature.asp?guid=B4D7C7BE-CA4E-4EF9-92E4-93FFFB2876B7
And don't forget to check out some of the other patents that Alan Cox filed for. Such as the patent for a "System, method and medium for using and/or providing operating system information to acquire a hybrid user/operating system lock"...which sounds a lot a Trusted Computing mechanism for locking out uncertified operating systems on a given set of hardware, a.k.a. prevent LInux from being run on Microsoft certified hardware. - kooft, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24Perhaps I'm missing something, but wouldn't prior art invalidate this patent?
- schestowitz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18Don't forget IBM's eShopping (among other basic Internet-related concepts). They recently sued Amazon, didn't they?
- killinger777, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17Read this paper from 1991. Pretty amazing how the predictions have come true. Very interesting and informative.
http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Links/prep.ai.mit.edu/issues.article
"Indeed, without conscious action by Congress or the Supreme Court,
the most fundamental rule of software publishing--if you write a
program, you own it--will change. The new rule will be that you might
own what you write--if it is so revolutionary that it owes nothing to
any previous work. No author in areas other than software is held to
such an unrealistically high standard." - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+24It's a cool way to stick it to MPAA and RIAA, but this shows how flawed our patent system is.
I'm filing a patent for the word patent. - HonoredMule, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Hey, careful. Those things carry disease.
- atroxodisse, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Yes they are. And in fact, they will likely be proven to be not within the letter or the spirit of patent law. Right now AT&T is suing Microsoft. Microsoft's defense, if successful will invalidate all software patents. Software should be copyrighted, not patented.
- kryptobs2000, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13What exactly does it mean to us if these patents are granted?
- Dominatus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11No, I'd argue that patents on software is always a bad idea. Just because patents can be used defensively doesn't mean they're good. If there was no such thing as software patents, you wouldn't need to worry about defensive ones.
- JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"What exactly does it mean to us if these patents are granted?"
It means that Alan Cox has satisfied all the necessary administrative requirements in order to be issued a patent number. Whether the patent is enforceable, well, that's for the courts to decide. - Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Silly Alan Cox, laws are to ensure that the rich get richer. Application DENIED.
- 10scjed, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13Ummm, aren't software patents bad?
- sudonim, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Would have been funnier if RMS had filled for this patent.
- djekz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6YOU HAVE MADE METALLICA SO ANGRY THEIR EYES HAVE ROLLED BACK IN THEIR HEADS:
http://www.encycmet.com/news/metallica-boobleheads.jpg - linuxwarz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Good bye star force!
- cdlavalle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Unfortunately, one of the factors affecting the viability of a patent is whether it will significantly hamper pre existing business that use the subject of the patent. Should be extremely easy for the RIAA/MPAA to argue. Unfortunately for the rest of us. ***** them (sorry for the language, but I don't think I mean those words more than right now)
- lnxaddct, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Software patents *are* bad, and Red Hat agrees. They even say (from the site linked below) "Red Hat has consistently taken the position that software patents generally impede innovation in software development ... Red Hat is also a signatory to a petition to the European Union encouraging the EU not to adopt a policy of permitting software patents. " .
Red Hat has quite a few patents in its defensive portfolio, but check out their legal promise: http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html
Yes, that's right, Red Hat hands over all patent rights to every patent in their portfolio if it is used in open source/free software. So pretty much, as long as you're helping out the open source community, you have unrestricted access to Red Hat's patent portfolio. I think that is pretty damn cool of them, given that we unfortunately live in a state right now where companies need patents to protect themselves from other companies with patents. - GliTCH82, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Well, that's all fine and dandy as long as Alan Cox doesn't turn over to the Dark Side™
- Altotus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5No. You are under no obligation to defend a patent. You are thinking of trademarks. Patents can only be invalidated if shown to not meet one of the requirements of issue (novel, useful, and inbovious to someone in the trade). Most patents on review are probably invalid, but they don't need to be valid to bully people with them.
Incidentally, a previous poster had mentioned that the validity of the patent is dependent on part on how its enforcement would affect existing businesses. That is not true in the USA. It is quite possible that a patent be granted that would effectively shut down many businesses unless they come to an agreement with the patent holder. In fact, there's quite a bit of precedent for that here in the US. Some countries do, however, take that sort of thing into consideration. - rolfeman02, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4What exactly is an 'entitlist?'
- hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4>That's like saying copyright of source code is bad under all circumstances. Copyright is bad only when used in a bad way.
Except that they grant two different blocks of rights. Arguments for one being intrinsically bad need not apply to the other. - jockser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4i think that the next story on digg is Alan cox has died of an unknown reason....
just kidding ;) - JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"... Alan and RH probably won't do anything with it because it'll be just too costly to attack every company using DRM's."
If they don't defend the patent, then it can be declared invalid. - mabhatter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Sure it does, the *IAA does not actually MAKE software... they bully other people into doing it. Alan is a kernel developer and could write some real wicked patents that would lock out everybody. There's a lot in DRM-land that hasn't been done... right now most DRM is pretty basic "gimmick + Secret Sauce" kind of stuff. Microsoft is close to cutting edge, but Linux or BSD by far takes the cake... none of the systems out there involve the public or community of coders... that's a big opportunity to write some crazy patents.
For instance, how about a patent for a DRM management system over Ubuntu? Take signed contributions from coders, into a secure change management and testing system, then take that system and one-up Gentoo by making a sort of internet-attached signed compile right on your machine...whatever options YOU want, for the WHOLE SYSTEM!! Microsoft would love to do that, but couldn't in a million years. Combine with internet tools like Tor or Freenet!!! Because the OSS/Linux world actually has input of the community and coders as well as access to all the source code, there are some Crazy opportunities for security that don't exist in the real world anywhere outside places like the NSA. - iandanger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Well, apparently they have at least one weakness, patches of European black ice.
- Mirag3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think you guys are confusing patents and copyright. The GPL is an example of a good way that copyright (or copyleft) is being used, specifically to keep code free. I personally have no problem with copyrighting source code (otherwise you couldnt sell it), but patents are different from source code and IMO almost always impede creativity. The difference between software copyrights and patents is that copyright allows you to make money off your own work, but not to take over any wide field, thus impeding creativity. Patents do exactly that when talking about software - all software is intrinsically extremely similar, and patents provide no room for works building on the original. Of course, Open Source is the best, but coders need jobs and food too, right?
- rabidsnail, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Invalid patents can be granted and overthrown in court. If someone violates the patent, and they show the judge prior art in the infringement suit, then the judge can effectively nullify the patent.
- mabhatter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think it's a cute idea! After all the Linux kernel contains all the same things as commercial kernels, but with several times the input... after all, in the patent world "armchair quarterbacks" are worth something in terms of adding quick and easy claims to a product. It's too bad there's not a "open patent" board similar to sourceforge... where groups like Digg or Slashdot could throw up some of the crazy ideas and see them get supporters... but the way the patent system works, even if you made the work in public, it can still be patented out from under you ... look at MS and the RSS stuff they're doing on top of free and open work.
On the other hand for a company like Red Hat it could be interesting, they have enough engineers now to devote to patent applications.. it's the currency in the world of "big business". Personally, I think it'd be really fun to let RMS and Eben Moglen could have REAL fun with patent applications.. think back in 1997 if he had banged out a patent for all the stuff in "Right to Read"!!! He could have single-handedly cause REAL hurt by now in the DRM industry. Perhaps it's time to fight fire with fire! - benanzo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ Cander
It's not a matter of suing the wrong people. Because Apple provides an enormous amount of distribution to the content makers, suing Apple for their use of unlicensed DRM would be effecively the same as suing the content makers. Apple would be forced to tell the music industry that they can no longer sell their music with DRM, resulting in a reevaluation of the the whole DRM scheme. If Apple can't sell it on iTunes (because of requiring potentially unlicensed DRM technology,) then the industry would be forced to move foreward without any restrictions, or *different* restrictions. - yavoh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I wonder, if this had happened a year or more ago, how it would've affected the Sony DRM scandal. Then again, their XCP already violated the GNU by implementing some of LAME's code.
- chiapet, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7I think Apple`s iTunes and Microsoft's for PlaysForSure would have a good case for prier art as it has bin in use before the patent was applied for
- insomniac8400, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2AMAZING! Well Played, Well Played.
- DanoTime, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Prior Art hasn't stopped people (rather, companies) before. But this will not occur. Too much money is at stake for this to be allowed.
- LiquidPenguin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Ok, let's just say that this particular patent is granted. I really don't see this as being a successful venture at all.
MPAA/RIAA is ***** huge. Comparing them to Redhat is not like comparing Goliath to David. This would be more like comparing a meteorite the size of our moon on a collision course with Earth with David standing somewhere in Wales trying to shoot it off course with his sling and pebbles. Alan is probably going to iritate the MPAA/RIAA and other DRM *****, but it's not going to change course. Unless there's something there that I'm not catching on to? - punkrockxtian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Considering the RIAA/MPAA control the universe I highly doubt that this will 'slip through the cracks' and be granted.
- mrfrosti, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Prior Art doesn't seem to mean much as Microsoft has filed for "emoticon", and IntelliSense patents.
- Fordi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Sure. But, since DRM is a Very Bad Thing for users in the first place, I think it would be more likely for Cox to charge rediculous amounts for licensing - forcing Apple and the **AA to think up a Better Idea.
- JeremyTTU, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Is it just me, or is the patent talking about "software licensing" not "DRM'ed stuff"?
- 10scjed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/blogs/software_aint_patentable_damn_it
- achew22, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@chiapet:
Prior art is only significant if it came before the object being patented existed. As I understand it, those came after he "created" DRM, therefore they wouldn't invalidate his claim for that patent.
Sincerely,
~Andrew Allen - dt40, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Suppose that the patent is somehow granted, despite the apparently obvious prior art issues.
Now suppose you are a greedy music exec who wants to make money by forcing customers to buy DRM'ed music.
Given RH's patent promise, it seems straightforward for said greedy music exec to commission the writing a small amount of open source software to do the desired DRM.
Voila, DRM without IP concerns. - richardiscool, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Wow, that guy's spoilt my vision - people around here don't use Linux! But he lives like 30 miles from me.
- aurifex, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I foresee this failing.
One man won't win against MPAA / RIAA / Microsoft / Apple / SonyBMG / Metallica
Especially Metallica, NO ONE CAN EVAR WIN AGAINST THEM!!1!! -
Show 51 - 85 of 85 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 