Headline FeedsLinuxInsider Talkback
|
|
Re: Open Source: Chicken Little and Age-Appropriate Explanations
Posted by: Heather J. Meeker 2005-05-04 05:23:32
See Full Story
In the mid 1990s, when I first began running into open source in my practice, I noticed that open source had a very strange effect on intellectual property lawyers. It was a Chicken Little situation, but instead of crying "the sky is falling" they were crying "the code is infringing." Nearly ten years later, very few intellectual property lawsuits have actually been filed relating to open source. The sky did not fall.
Re: Open Source: Chicken Little and Age-Appropriate Explanations
Posted by: mauricemcc 2005-05-12 12:29:20 In reply to: Heather J. Meeker
A rather strong counter-example to Meeker's view has emerged just today.
http://uk.builder.com/programming/unix/0,39026612,39246157,00.htm
---
As a lawyer must proceed by statute and precedent then it is both natural and good that lawyers are conservative. BUT ... patent is a political discretion and not an economic right. Such discretions are only culturally allowable when they lead to the greater social good.
The great argument of the anti-software lobby is that the conditions for this social good are exceeded in software. The law on neither side of the Atlantic can make any meaningful distinction between hardware and software when it comes to patent law. So I must put it to you, How do think you can make a meaningful distinction between knowledge or idea and its implementation?
A patent on software, such as a protocol, is exactly a patent on knowledge. In software the difference between science and technology has been lost. Therefore patent becomes an anti-social act in these circumstances.
Regards
Maurice McCarthy
http://uk.builder.com/programming/unix/0,39026612,39246157,00.htm
---
As a lawyer must proceed by statute and precedent then it is both natural and good that lawyers are conservative. BUT ... patent is a political discretion and not an economic right. Such discretions are only culturally allowable when they lead to the greater social good.
The great argument of the anti-software lobby is that the conditions for this social good are exceeded in software. The law on neither side of the Atlantic can make any meaningful distinction between hardware and software when it comes to patent law. So I must put it to you, How do think you can make a meaningful distinction between knowledge or idea and its implementation?
A patent on software, such as a protocol, is exactly a patent on knowledge. In software the difference between science and technology has been lost. Therefore patent becomes an anti-social act in these circumstances.
Regards
Maurice McCarthy
Re: Open Source: Chicken Little and Age-Appropriate Explanations
Posted by: nobot 2005-05-12 05:13:52 In reply to: Heather J. Meeker
Hi,
many articles need more comments than this one.
End of congratulations.
There is no need for a falling sky to abandon software patents. The burden of proof is on the pro-patents side. The sort of exclusion right given by patents is generally not justified without macroeconomic or social net benefit.
So, please, show examples of innovative software of a sort that would not have had a reasonable chance of being developed without software patents. Consider the criterion of "reasonable chance" over the 20-year exclusion period given by patents.
Should you ever reach that level (lawyers typically don't, and wouldn't even need to if they left the word to more relevant experts), then please weigh that against the list of examples listed e.g. at http://swpat.ffii.org/patents/effects/
Have a nice day.
many articles need more comments than this one.
End of congratulations.
There is no need for a falling sky to abandon software patents. The burden of proof is on the pro-patents side. The sort of exclusion right given by patents is generally not justified without macroeconomic or social net benefit.
So, please, show examples of innovative software of a sort that would not have had a reasonable chance of being developed without software patents. Consider the criterion of "reasonable chance" over the 20-year exclusion period given by patents.
Should you ever reach that level (lawyers typically don't, and wouldn't even need to if they left the word to more relevant experts), then please weigh that against the list of examples listed e.g. at http://swpat.ffii.org/patents/effects/
Have a nice day.
Re: Open Source: Chicken Little and Age-Appropriate Explanations
Posted by: mitch074 2005-05-05 13:29:51 In reply to: Heather J. Meeker
This article is quite informative, well argumented, all in all a reasonable way to accept intents behind copyright and patent. Now, you asked if there already was a case of open-source being stifled by patents. Here: try to open an asf or wmv video with Virtualdub (www.virtualdub.org).
Virtualdub is a GPLv2 licenced software that allows fast streamlined operations on videos. It USED to be able to open asf/wmv files, since the author reverse engineered the format from looking at an asf file (and not some other application code). I've read the actual text from the patents, they were simplistic - still, they were accepted. Now, Virtualdub was the only non-paying application able to easily open non-encrypted asf files for edition. It can't do that anymore.
One down.
Now then, you said that 10 years ago copyright war didn't start. Ok, true: there wasn't an all-out war on copyright infringement. What about the freeBSD case (1991)? Here too, I read the text (it is freely available on the 'net). 10 years ago, Linux was an upstart, really not ready for production use, while freeBSD could have been. No war, but a drawn-out battle that, had it not taken place, would mean freeBSD developed with 10 years of advance - thus being present on servers and desktops (see: MacOS-X for the latter), and one BIG competitor for MS Windows.
You're a lawyer, a competent one too. You have good points. But they stand on one big IF. And it could go both ways. In France we have a saying: with IFs you fit Paris in a bottle.
Mitch 74
Virtualdub is a GPLv2 licenced software that allows fast streamlined operations on videos. It USED to be able to open asf/wmv files, since the author reverse engineered the format from looking at an asf file (and not some other application code). I've read the actual text from the patents, they were simplistic - still, they were accepted. Now, Virtualdub was the only non-paying application able to easily open non-encrypted asf files for edition. It can't do that anymore.
One down.
Now then, you said that 10 years ago copyright war didn't start. Ok, true: there wasn't an all-out war on copyright infringement. What about the freeBSD case (1991)? Here too, I read the text (it is freely available on the 'net). 10 years ago, Linux was an upstart, really not ready for production use, while freeBSD could have been. No war, but a drawn-out battle that, had it not taken place, would mean freeBSD developed with 10 years of advance - thus being present on servers and desktops (see: MacOS-X for the latter), and one BIG competitor for MS Windows.
You're a lawyer, a competent one too. You have good points. But they stand on one big IF. And it could go both ways. In France we have a saying: with IFs you fit Paris in a bottle.
Mitch 74
Re: Open Source: Chicken Little and Age-Appropriate Explanations
Posted by: sopfobrhbgwhp 2005-05-05 12:22:53 In reply to: Heather J. Meeker
Hmm. If Heather Meeker really is coyly referring to the GPL with her "poorly drafted, contradictory, irremediably vague, and overreaching" copyright license, this would be ironic indeed, since she started her argument by claiming that the rampant 'copyright infringement' fears were unwarranted. In fact, she might be hinting, there *was* rampant copyright infringement all along -- but the bad guys were the *proprietary* companies, who had been nicking *GPL* code and running up "millions of dollars of lawyer fees and the scrapping or re-engineering of many projects" as they try to get clean, instead of vice-versa.
As subtly enticing as that scenario is -- what a dramatic reversal-of-fortunes story! -- I can't help but feel that identifying this mystery license as the GPL is just a knee-jerk reaction by readers accustomed to clueless IT reporters spreading FUD about the license which protects my/our contributions to the software commons from the oft-cited tragedy.
I'd suspect the standard Microsoft EULA to be the copyright license 'left to my imagination'. There are certainly millions of lawyer dollars just in "license audit" shakedown fees and other BSA activities. Not to mention all of Microsoft's other monopoly practices which have certainly thrown many a projects into the 're-engineering' bin. The reader can certainly imagine their own Microsoft-related inconveniences, which would have been alleviated by more generous licensing: say, third-party access to and (thus) fixes for Microsoft's code.
As subtly enticing as that scenario is -- what a dramatic reversal-of-fortunes story! -- I can't help but feel that identifying this mystery license as the GPL is just a knee-jerk reaction by readers accustomed to clueless IT reporters spreading FUD about the license which protects my/our contributions to the software commons from the oft-cited tragedy.
I'd suspect the standard Microsoft EULA to be the copyright license 'left to my imagination'. There are certainly millions of lawyer dollars just in "license audit" shakedown fees and other BSA activities. Not to mention all of Microsoft's other monopoly practices which have certainly thrown many a projects into the 're-engineering' bin. The reader can certainly imagine their own Microsoft-related inconveniences, which would have been alleviated by more generous licensing: say, third-party access to and (thus) fixes for Microsoft's code.
Re: Open Source: Chicken Little and Age-Appropriate Explanations
Posted by: darose 2005-05-05 08:47:19 In reply to: Heather J. Meeker
If I recall correctly, the Unisys LZH patent (used in the encoding of GIF images) was a big pain for the open source community. It eventually spurred the creation of the PNG graphics standard as a workaround. I think a similar situation existed with the MP3 format, which is patented by a German company. OGG format was developed as a result.
Re: Open Source: Chicken Little and Age-Appropriate Explanations
Posted by: Blackberry 2005-05-05 01:58:27 In reply to: Heather J. Meeker
Heather, nice article (but are you inferring that the GPL is that evil copyright license? I hope not).
A few evidence links to be getting on with:
http://linux.sgms-centre.com/howto/lamps.php
""" Due to patent issues, servers based in the EU, the USA and Japan are not allowed to use the IDEA encryption algorithm for commercial purposes without obtaining a licence from MediaCrypt beforehand.
The patent on the IDEA protocol expires in November 2010.
"""
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/22/2042208&from=rss
""" Eh-Wire writes "OnLamp is reporting on the MySQL Users Conference that is currently underway. Among the highlights are the announcement that the code for MySQL 5.0 is now complete. Axmark and Widenius suggest that squashing bugs is the key behind the success of MySQL. Michael Tiemann from Red Hat and the OSI delivered a keynote on "Defining Open Source". He suggests that Microsoft's "shared source license" has been a complete failure at the design level."
"""
regards,
-cybervegan
A few evidence links to be getting on with:
http://linux.sgms-centre.com/howto/lamps.php
""" Due to patent issues, servers based in the EU, the USA and Japan are not allowed to use the IDEA encryption algorithm for commercial purposes without obtaining a licence from MediaCrypt beforehand.
The patent on the IDEA protocol expires in November 2010.
"""
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/22/2042208&from=rss
""" Eh-Wire writes "OnLamp is reporting on the MySQL Users Conference that is currently underway. Among the highlights are the announcement that the code for MySQL 5.0 is now complete. Axmark and Widenius suggest that squashing bugs is the key behind the success of MySQL. Michael Tiemann from Red Hat and the OSI delivered a keynote on "Defining Open Source". He suggests that Microsoft's "shared source license" has been a complete failure at the design level."
"""
regards,
-cybervegan
Re: Open Source: Chicken Little and Age-Appropriate Explanations
Posted by: kawabago 2005-05-04 19:05:31 In reply to: Heather J. Meeker
You forget to weigh the opposite argument. If Open Source is out-innovating proprietary without patents, why do you need them? Your own facts seem to indicate that innovation increases in an open collaborative forum so wouldn't your time be better spent in an area where patents actually do help?
examples of free software being hampered by software patents
Posted by: minmax 2005-05-04 16:04:52 In reply to: Heather J. Meeker
Examples of open source software functionality being hampered by software patents:
1. VideoLAN client had to disable support for DTS sound due to software patents:
NOTE: This release doesn't include DTS audio decoding support. DTS Inc. claims that distributing this software with DTS decoding capabilities is a violation of their patent EP 864 146. At DTS Inc. request, we decided, as a precautionary measure, to provisionally suspend the distribution of VLC with DTS decoding capabilities while reviewing DTS Inc. claim. This is not an acknowledgement of the validity of the claim.
2. Author of BladeEnc mp3 encoder had to stop binary distribution in europe.
3. Authors of FreeType library got message from Apple that they are infriging. They removed hinting and it took them years to get font rendering under Linux on par with Windows and Apple platforms.
---------------------------------
These are all real and existing cases where free software was hampered by patents even when there was no immediate monetary advantage for the patent owner to do so. Imagine the cases where open source actually is a threat to a company with pile of software patents.
All this projects are of extreme importance for survival of Linux as multimedia platform, and they are being seriously hampered by software patents.
It is expected that every time independent projects step on someones toes, he will start threatening with software patents.
1. VideoLAN client had to disable support for DTS sound due to software patents:
NOTE: This release doesn't include DTS audio decoding support. DTS Inc. claims that distributing this software with DTS decoding capabilities is a violation of their patent EP 864 146. At DTS Inc. request, we decided, as a precautionary measure, to provisionally suspend the distribution of VLC with DTS decoding capabilities while reviewing DTS Inc. claim. This is not an acknowledgement of the validity of the claim.
2. Author of BladeEnc mp3 encoder had to stop binary distribution in europe.
3. Authors of FreeType library got message from Apple that they are infriging. They removed hinting and it took them years to get font rendering under Linux on par with Windows and Apple platforms.
---------------------------------
These are all real and existing cases where free software was hampered by patents even when there was no immediate monetary advantage for the patent owner to do so. Imagine the cases where open source actually is a threat to a company with pile of software patents.
All this projects are of extreme importance for survival of Linux as multimedia platform, and they are being seriously hampered by software patents.
It is expected that every time independent projects step on someones toes, he will start threatening with software patents.
