8 Dec
2004
8 Dec
'04
3:21 p.m.
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 19:01 , 'Pedro Lozano' <pl2(a)ono.com> sent:
IBM has already stated that if anyone goes after Linux with a patent issue
IBM (the largest patent holder in the world) will go after them.
An end user of a copyrighted/patented product is not liable for infringement
suits *unless* the end user distributes the copyrighted/patented product in
violation of the copyright/patent. If you just buy a product from a vendor and
use it you aren't liable for infringement. You didn't infringe the
copyright/patent, the vendor did. At any rate SCO is about to get its ass handed
to it by DC ;-)
Jan
2) If such an
issue should be discovered, Novell will back up the Linux
side with their patent-portfolio, which (cough) *could* (cough) be an
expensive experience for the attacker.
Novell would back linux if they can get money from it, if the Singapore
administration doesnt buy linux from Novell I dont think they will get
involved.
4) The end user is not responsible for what patent issues the producer
might get involved with.
Many companies thinks that it is, the SCO vs DaimlerCrysler case (because of
they use Linux) is an example, that case is because of copyright but surely
will be many like that because of patents.
8 Dec
8 Dec
3:42 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] Patents on some Linux OS code
<eviltwin69(a)cableone.net> writes:
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 19:01 , 'Pedro Lozano'
<pl2(a)ono.com> sent:
>> 2) If such an issue should be discovered, Novell will back up the
>>Linux side with their patent-portfolio, which (cough) *could*
>>(cough) be an expensive experience for the attacker.
> Novell would back linux if they can get money
from it, if the
>Singapore administration doesnt buy linux from Novell I dont think
>they will get involved.
IBM has already stated that if anyone goes after
Linux with a
patent issue IBM (the largest patent holder in the world) will go
after them.
I feel sure they will.
>> 4) The end user is not responsible for what
patent issues the
>>producer might get involved with.
> Many companies thinks that it is, the SCO vs
DaimlerCrysler case
>(because of they use Linux) is an example, that case is because of
>copyright but surely will be many like that because of patents.
An end user of a copyrighted/patented product is
not liable for
infringement suits *unless* the end user distributes the
copyrighted/patented product in violation of the copyright/patent. If
you just buy a product from a vendor and use it you aren't liable for
infringement. You didn't infringe the copyright/patent, the vendor
did. At any rate SCO is about to get its ass handed to it by DC ;-)
It may take years, but when IBM's countersuit against SCO is finally
settled, I predict SCO is going to owe IBM more than their (SCO's) net
worth.
--
joq
3:53 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] Patents on some Linux OS code
I didnt say they were right, I said that they think they are right.
They think that if there is no "producer" backing the product then they can
attack the user as the guilty of the patent infraction, and I think that we
will see more threats and trials because of that. This is something that is
happening, not only my thoughs.
Maybe they will lost all the cases, but if a company see the posibility of
been sued by MS only because of using Linux then they will think about it
twice.
An example
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/facts/indemnification/policy.m…
of what they think.This is something Linux cannot offer unless you buy it
from Red Hat, Suse, IBM or companies that offer a similar service.
The ugliest thing is that MS is probably the company that more software
ideas has copied from others (anyone remember Stac or Netscape?) and now the
are using patents as a weapon against the open software that is getting some
of their market share.
Pedro.
4:11 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] Patents on some Linux OS code
They think that if there is no "producer"
backing the product then they can
attack the user as the guilty of the patent infraction, and I think that we
will see more threats and trials because of that. This is something that is
happening, not only my thoughs.
it is *not* happening. its as simple as that. court cases based on s/w
patents are very, very, very hard to find, for reasons i outlined
earlier.
so-called "intellectual property" cases are happening, but these are
entirely different in that they are based on copyright and trademark
and trade secret laws, which do not look anything like patent law.
--p
4:47 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] Patents on some Linux OS code
Then I dont understand why there are companies pushing for the aproval of
software patents in europe and worldwide. To patent stupid things and not
using these patents for anything?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Davis" <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com>
To: "The Linux Audio Developers' Mailing List"
<linux-audio-dev(a)music.columbia.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 9:11 PM
Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Patents on some Linux OS code
They think that
if there is no "producer" backing the product then they
can
attack the user as the guilty of the patent infraction, and I think that
we
will see more threats and trials because of that. This is something that
is
happening, not only my thoughs.
it is *not* happening. its as simple as that. court cases based on s/w
patents are very, very, very hard to find, for reasons i outlined
earlier.
so-called "intellectual property" cases are happening, but these are
entirely different in that they are based on copyright and trademark
and trade secret laws, which do not look anything like patent law.
--p
4:57 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] Patents on some Linux OS code
Then I dont understand why there are companies pushing
for the aproval of
software patents in europe and worldwide. To patent stupid things and not
using these patents for anything?
fear, and copycat behaviour. there is this idea (inspired by IBM and
others) of building a "patent portfolio" that could be used
defensively if sued by other patent holders. as in "ok, you sued me
for infringing on Foo, i'll sue you for infringing on Bar". But most
owners of patents Foo or Bar can't risk actually suing because their
patent is stupid.
its the kind of stupid game that you'd have hoped ended when we left
the school playing field.
--p
9 Dec
9 Dec
4:15 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] Patents on some Linux OS code
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Davis" <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com>
fear, and copycat behaviour. there is this idea
(inspired by IBM and
others) of building a "patent portfolio" that could be used
defensively if sued by other patent holders. as in "ok, you sued me
for infringing on Foo, i'll sue you for infringing on Bar". But most
owners of patents Foo or Bar can't risk actually suing because their
patent is stupid.
its the kind of stupid game that you'd have hoped ended when we left
the school playing field.
That's nosense to me. In that case it would be easier for those companies to
promote the "abolition" of software patents, forget that game and not to
worry about any software patents. And the recent declarations of Mr Ballmer
suggest that they are planning to play another game.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Erik de Castro Lopo" <erikd-lad(a)mega-nerd.com>
Apart from encouraging stupid patents, the best thing
you can do is ignore
it completely. When and if you get a cease and desist letter you do the
following:
0) Get the patent holder to provide enough information for you to
figure out if you might infinge or not.
1) If you are out of jurisdiction you may want to disregard the
patent anyway.
2) Get the patent documents and see if the patent can be challenged.
3) If you think it can be challenged, state so publicly in the web
page for the software and tell the patent holder that you will
challenge the patent validity if they try to bring it to court.
4) If it can't be overturned, say sorry to the patent holder and pull
the software for the 2-3 weeks it takes to reimplement the code
working around the patent.
Erik
Thats the problem with sw patents, having to worry about all these legal
things, working around patents, finding prior art, etc etc I don't thinks
that's any good for a programmer or a small company.
An example (fictional):
I start a new company and I invent some new method of storing or
representing data (or anything) and I patent it.
Then afther some weeks or months I see IBM or MS using my method in their
products.
I cannot sue them to get money for my invention because, as Paul said, they
would use their patent portfolio against me. So the patent system renders
useless for small companies when it's supposed to be made to promote
invention.
Note that all this cases I'm talking in my mails are in the case that
software patents get passed. I know that I've nothing to worry about right
now but maybe in the future (since I live in EU).
Pedro
3 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] Patents on some Linux OS code
Pedro Lozano wrote:
Thats the problem with sw patents, having to worry
about all these legal
things, working around patents, finding prior art, etc etc I don't
thinks that's any good for a programmer or a small company.
Fully agreed on this one...
An example (fictional):
I start a new company and I invent some new method of storing or
representing data (or anything) and I patent it.
Then afther some weeks or months I see IBM or MS using my method in
their products.
Either the idea is new and original enough that they can't reproduce it
without reading the patent, in which case it's wilful infringement,
triple damages, and a good lawyer will probably take your case... or
it's obvious or in some way possible for more than one person to come up
with the idea independently, in which case you don't really deserve the
patent on it in the first place.
If someone can come up with the same storage technique as you have used,
simply by hearing about your software or having to solve the same
problems themselves, then the patent should be invalidated, if it was
even possible to be granted it in the first place.
Founding an entire business model that's based on other people not
knowing what you know is a recipe for disaster, imho.
2:39 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] Patents on some Linux OS code
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 21:47:25 +0100
"Pedro Lozano" <pl2(a)ono.com> wrote:
Then I dont understand why there are companies pushing
for the aproval of
software patents in europe and worldwide. To patent stupid things and not
using these patents for anything?
Look, the patenting of stupid things is to be encouraged as strongly as
possible. The US (and other) patent systems will soon colapse under their
own weight and then be discarded.
Apart from encouraging stupid patents, the best thing you can do is ignore
it completely. When and if you get a cease and desist letter you do the
following:
0) Get the patent holder to provide enough information for you to
figure out if you might infinge or not.
1) If you are out of jurisdiction you may want to disregard the
patent anyway.
2) Get the patent documents and see if the patent can be challenged.
3) If you think it can be challenged, state so publicly in the web
page for the software and tell the patent holder that you will
challenge the patent validity if they try to bring it to court.
4) If it can't be overturned, say sorry to the patent holder and pull
the software for the 2-3 weeks it takes to reimplement the code
working around the patent.
Erik
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Erik de Castro Lopo nospam(a)mega-nerd.com (Yes it's valid)
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Learning Linux is like joining a cult. Sure it's fun at first but
you waste time, become brainwashed, and then have to be de-programmed
by Bill Gates before you can work for Him again.
- Ray Lopez, in UFhK4.33289$y4.1192894(a)newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net
13 Dec
13 Dec
12:55 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] Patents on some Linux OS code
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 05:39:50PM +1100, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
Look, the patenting of stupid things is to be encouraged as strongly as
possible. The US (and other) patent systems will soon colapse under their
own weight and then be discarded.
Apart from encouraging stupid patents, the best thing you can do is ignore
it completely. When and if you get a cease and desist letter you do the
following:
0) Get the patent holder to provide enough information for you to
figure out if you might infinge or not.
1) If you are out of jurisdiction you may want to disregard the
patent anyway.
2) Get the patent documents and see if the patent can be challenged.
3) If you think it can be challenged, state so publicly in the web
page for the software and tell the patent holder that you will
challenge the patent validity if they try to bring it to court.
4) If it can't be overturned, say sorry to the patent holder and pull
the software for the 2-3 weeks it takes to reimplement the code
working around the patent.
i like this approach, especially the 'encouraging stupid ones'.
a few weeks ago, i looked at Yin, an f0 estimation algorithm. i
wrote to the author to know if it was ok to release it under the
GPL. he replied 'the algorithm is patented but i think there
should be no problem'. i am not qualified to judge on point 2,
but i seriously doubt on its validity, besides we do not have
software patents in Europe. and i went to point 3 (updated):
http://aubio.piem.org/news/YIN_patented_and_GPL.html
now i wonder when someone will get a patent on making additions.
bye, paul
9 Dec
9 Dec
10:41 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] Patents on some Linux OS code
On Wed, 2004-08-12 at 21:47 +0100, Pedro Lozano wrote:
Then I dont understand why there are companies pushing
for the aproval of
software patents in europe and worldwide. To patent stupid things and not
using these patents for anything?
I went to a talk by a (North American) patent lawyer about how to patent
your software. It was all about how you "should" intentionally try to
make your patent as incredibly vague as possible, so it encompasses as
wide a range of things as possible. Complete with really bad, totally
inapplicable metaphors about physical objects of course.
I brought up the European software patent issue and he adamantly claimed
that Europe had software patents right now. The idea of software
patents not being valid in Europe was just ridiculous to him. Not
surprising, given that this guy's career is making the most retarded
patents possible, but still - never underestimate these kinds of people.
I doubt the lawyers at these companies think to themselves "gee, this
patent isn't really valid at all, but I better make/defend it anyway so
we can combat our competitor's equally trivial invalid patents".
They're jaded idiots, and they probably really do think software patents
are a completely valid thing. Heck, if there anything like the typical
lawyers I've talked to, the idea of software patents NOT being valid is
crazy talk.
-DR-
3:43 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] Re: Patents on some Linux OS code
Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com> writes:
when I installed fedora core 2 there was no way to play, let alone
encode mp3 audio. i thought that was because mp3 is patented and free
implementations can't exist in US. would fedora.us have been sued if
they provided lame and mpg123 in the distribution?
--
Artem Baguinski: http://www.artm.org/
V2_Lab: http://lab.v2.nl/
V2_ Organisation for the Unstable Media: http://www.v2.nl/
They think that
if there is no "producer" backing the product then they can
attack the user as the guilty of the patent infraction, and I think that we
will see more threats and trials because of that. This is something that is
happening, not only my thoughs.
it is *not* happening. its as simple as that. court cases based on s/w
patents are very, very, very hard to find, for reasons i outlined
earlier.
so-called "intellectual property" cases are happening, but these are
entirely different in that they are based on copyright and trademark
and trade secret laws, which do not look anything like patent law.
7281
days inactive
7285
days old
linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
11 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
Artem Baguinski -
Dave Robillard -
Erik de Castro Lopo -
eviltwin69＠cableone.net -
Jack O'Quin -
Paul Brossier -
Paul Davis -
Pedro Lozano -
Tom Molesworth