Patent hit - MS goes after Linux - FreeBSD ?

[jb]

Hi,
this should not be ignored; sooner or later things will get nasty ...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/25/microsoft_patent_deal_amdocs/

The sooner FreeBSD gets rid of Linux-based software (apps, tools) in its ports,
the better. The FB Foundation and Core Team should enact a plan.
This should actually happen regardless of MS in the shadows and validity of
their claims.
jb


_______________________________________________
freebsd-...@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org"

[Sean Cavanaugh]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-freeb...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-
> ques...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of jb
> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 8:05 AM
> To: freebsd-...@freebsd.org
> Subject: Patent hit - MS goes after Linux - FreeBSD ?
>
> Hi,
> this should not be ignored; sooner or later things will get nasty ...
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/25/microsoft_patent_deal_amdocs/
>
> The sooner FreeBSD gets rid of Linux-based software (apps, tools) in its
> ports, the better. The FB Foundation and Core Team should enact a plan.
> This should actually happen regardless of MS in the shadows and validity
of
> their claims.
> jb
>

Are you referring to actual Linux-based software or are you confusing
GNU-based software? Remember that Linux is only the kernel, GNU is the OS.

[Traiano Welcome]

FUD. Ignore. They're going the same way as SCO.

T.G.W

________________________________________
From: owner-freeb...@freebsd.org [owner-freeb...@freebsd.org] on behalf of jb [jb.12...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 2:05 PM

To: freebsd-...@freebsd.org
Subject: Patent hit - MS goes after Linux - FreeBSD ?

Hi,
this should not be ignored; sooner or later things will get nasty ...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/25/microsoft_patent_deal_amdocs/

The sooner FreeBSD gets rid of Linux-based software (apps, tools) in its ports,
the better. The FB Foundation and Core Team should enact a plan.
This should actually happen regardless of MS in the shadows and validity of
their claims.
jb

[jb]

Sean Cavanaugh <millenia2000 <at> hotmail.com> writes:

> ...
> > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/25/microsoft_patent_deal_amdocs/
> >
> > The sooner FreeBSD gets rid of Linux-based software (apps, tools) in its
> > ports, the better. The FB Foundation and Core Team should enact a plan.
> > This should actually happen regardless of MS in the shadows and validity
> > of
> > their claims.
> > jb
> >
>

> Are you referring to actual Linux-based software or are you confusing
> GNU-based software? Remember that Linux is only the kernel, GNU is the OS.

> ...

This is about patents, so mostly technologies.
Well, FreeBSD does not care obout Linux kernel, but GNU software and
GNU/Linux OS-specific technologies migrated with their apps into FreeBSD.

This is a scan of ports with "linux" keyword:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/ports.cgi?query=linux&stype=all
It looks somewhat silly to have to rely on those "Linux-whatever" things to be
a functional FreeBSD OS ...

FUD or not, has FreeBSD examined in the past its reliance on non-FreeBSD
software ?
It made a first imporant step with clang/clang++ and associated libc/c++ to
counter GPL trickery; there could be done much more to eliminate Linux-based
software.

[Wojciech Puchar]

> this should not be ignored; sooner or later things will get nasty ...

> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/25/microsoft_patent_deal_amdocs/
>
> The sooner FreeBSD gets rid of Linux-based software (apps, tools) in its ports,
> the better. The FB Foundation and Core Team should enact a plan.

ports are not software itself. ports are set of tools to build/install
someone else software. FreeBSD doesn't force you to install any ports, and
core system doesn't consist of linux software at all.

It is not the FreeBSD and core team responsibility of what ports you are
using. Appropriate licence files are put in ports tree.

> This should actually happen regardless of MS in the shadows and validity of
> their claims.

Why?

Core system and ports are two clearly separate things.

[Wojciech Puchar]

> FUD. Ignore. They're going the same way as SCO.

even if not it's just matter to add proper licence to right ports in port
tree and require user to accept it.

>
> T.G.W
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: owner-freeb...@freebsd.org [owner-freeb...@freebsd.org] on behalf of jb [jb.12...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 2:05 PM
> To: freebsd-...@freebsd.org
> Subject: Patent hit - MS goes after Linux - FreeBSD ?
>
> Hi,

> this should not be ignored; sooner or later things will get nasty ...
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/25/microsoft_patent_deal_amdocs/
>
> The sooner FreeBSD gets rid of Linux-based software (apps, tools) in its ports,
> the better. The FB Foundation and Core Team should enact a plan.

> This should actually happen regardless of MS in the shadows and validity of
> their claims.

> jb

[Wojciech Puchar]

> This is a scan of ports with "linux" keyword:
> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/ports.cgi?query=linux&stype=all
> It looks somewhat silly to have to rely on those "Linux-whatever" things to be
> a functional FreeBSD OS ...

still you are talking on ports.

In what base system rely on linux?

> It made a first imporant step with clang/clang++ and associated libc/c++ to
> counter GPL trickery; there could be done much more to eliminate Linux-based
> software.

#cd /usr/src/gnu/
#ls usr.bin lib
lib:
Makefile csu libgcc libgomp
libreadline libssp libsupc++
Makefile.inc libdialog libgcov libodialog libregex
libstdc++

usr.bin:
Makefile cc diff gdb groff
sdiff texinfo
Makefile.inc cvs diff3 gperf patch
send-pr
binutils dialog dtc grep rcs
sort



on my clang-free FreeBSD 9 system.

do not exaggerate. clang move is already too early and IMHO wrong.

[Traiano Welcome]

>even if not  it's just matter to add proper licence to right ports in port
>tree and require user to accept it.

Probably won't even have to do that. People can download, compile and run whatever they want on a base operating system, but as long as the base operating system (FreeBSD in our case) remains "legally un-encumbered" with patented code, nobody really cares. If individual users decide they want to compile and run copyrighted software on FreeBSD (or linux) it will be a matter between M$ and the particular user in question, not the community providing the base OS and user space tools.

The SCO-IBM debacle some years ago triggered a huge review of open source copyrights in the linux (and *bsd) community. SCO failed to get anything back then, and it's hard to imagine how M$ will get anything now that there's broader awareness in "the community" around software patent infringement.

________________________________________
From: Wojciech Puchar [woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl]
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 3:12 PM
To: Traiano Welcome
Cc: jb; freebsd-...@freebsd.org
Subject: RE: Patent hit - MS goes after Linux - FreeBSD ?

> FUD. Ignore. They're going the same way as SCO.

even if not it's just matter to add proper licence to right ports in port
tree and require user to accept it.

>
> T.G.W
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: owner-freeb...@freebsd.org [owner-freeb...@freebsd.org] on behalf of jb [jb.12...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 2:05 PM
> To: freebsd-...@freebsd.org
> Subject: Patent hit - MS goes after Linux - FreeBSD ?
>
> Hi,
> this should not be ignored; sooner or later things will get nasty ...
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/25/microsoft_patent_deal_amdocs/
>
> The sooner FreeBSD gets rid of Linux-based software (apps, tools) in its ports,
> the better. The FB Foundation and Core Team should enact a plan.
> This should actually happen regardless of MS in the shadows and validity of
> their claims.
> jb
>
>

[Sean Cavanaugh]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-freeb...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-

> ques...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Wojciech Puchar
> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 9:12 AM
> To: Traiano Welcome
> Cc: jb; freebsd-...@freebsd.org
> Subject: RE: Patent hit - MS goes after Linux - FreeBSD ?
>
> > FUD. Ignore. They're going the same way as SCO.
>
> even if not it's just matter to add proper licence to right ports in port
tree
> and require user to accept it.
>
> >

That already exists. Install java and it will have you manually download it
so as to accept their license, or the Intel NIC drivers that have you add a
license acknowledge line in loader.conf.

FreeBSD as a whole is not encumbered. that was whole issue over the UNIX
license issues way back when (which indirectly led Linus Torvalds to write
Linux). Further releasing the burden has been seen with the replacement of
GCC with CLANG to get the core OS to be as close to 100% BSD licensed.

[Wojciech Puchar]

>> even if not �it's just matter to add proper licence to right ports in port
>> tree and require user to accept it.
>

> Probably won't even have to do that. People can download, compile and run whatever they want on a base operating system,
> but as long as the base operating system (FreeBSD in our case) remains
>"legally un-encumbered" with patented code, nobody really cares. If
>individual users decide they want to compile and run copyrighted software
>on FreeBSD (or linux) it will be a matter between M$ and the particular
>user in question, not the community providing the base OS and user space
>tools.

this is exactly what i meant.

FreeBSD users should be happy about that situation as linux is far more
media-popular and screens other free unices from attacks.

[Chad Perrin]

On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 01:39:21PM +0000, Traiano Welcome wrote:
> >
> >even if not �it's just matter to add proper licence to right ports in
> >port tree and require user to accept it.
>
> Probably won't even have to do that. People can download, compile and
> run whatever they want on a base operating system, but as long as the
> base operating system (FreeBSD in our case) remains "legally
> un-encumbered" with patented code, nobody really cares. If individual
> users decide they want to compile and run copyrighted software on
> FreeBSD (or linux) it will be a matter between M$ and the particular
> user in question, not the community providing the base OS and user
> space tools.
>

> The SCO-IBM debacle some years ago triggered a huge review of open
> source copyrights in the linux (and *bsd) community. SCO failed to get
> anything back then, and it's hard to imagine how M$ will get anything
> now that there's broader awareness in "the community" around software
> patent infringement.

Unfortunately, patent law and copyright law are very different
environments. The truth is that probably every nontrivial piece of
software created infringes several patents, and the only question that
remains is whether those patents would hold up in court under close
scrutiny. The greater the disparity in legal expertise and funding
behind the two parties, the greater the likelihood that the case will be
found in favor of the party with the greater resources.

This is the reason software patents comprise such a blight on the world
of software development. Even a frivolous patent that would not hold up
through completion of litigation may serve its purpose by bankrupting a
defendant before the case is concluded.

It is possible that Microsoft is going the way of SCO -- into its grave,
having hung all its hopes on litigation. Along the way, though, it will
probably do a lot of damage to a lot of people, projects, and businesses,
and I just hope it doesn't get as far as the FreeBSD project or any
FreeBSD users before things come crashing down.

(disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. Et cetera.)

--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]

[Wojciech Puchar]

> It is possible that Microsoft is going the way of SCO -- into its grave,

true. Microsoft know it is falling.

People got fed up with microsoft. They now want even worse and more dumb
software and hardware.

[Jerry]

On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 22:49:37 +0200 (CEST)
Wojciech Puchar articulated:

> true. Microsoft know it is falling.
>
> People got fed up with microsoft. They now want even worse and more
> dumb software and hardware.

You do realize that, that statement can be construed as a condemnation
of non-Microsoft software, AKA open-source?

--
Jerry ♔

Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the Reply-To header.
__________________________________________________________________

[C. P. Ghost]

On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 8:57 PM, Chad Perrin <per...@apotheon.com> wrote:
> It is possible that Microsoft is going the way of SCO -- into its grave,

> having hung all its hopes on litigation. Along the way, though, it will
> probably do a lot of damage to a lot of people, projects, and businesses,
> and I just hope it doesn't get as far as the FreeBSD project or any
> FreeBSD users before things come crashing down.

Right!

Let's also hope that most patents that could harm us (should there
be some lurking out there) will have expired by then. Unless Congress
pulls a Mickey Mouse Protection Act-lookalike on patents by extending
them just as they did with Copyright.

But as usual with Congress, I wouldn't hold my breath: they aren't
exactly known for enacting reasonable and sensible laws. Especially
not when heavily lobbied by mega corps with deep pockets like MSFT,
Oracle, Apple and so on. Yes, things will get really nasty once those
corporations go the way of the SCO.

> (disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. Et cetera.)
>
> --
> Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]

Regards,
-cpghost.

--
Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/

[Erich Dollansky]

Hi,

On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 12:57:59 -0600
Chad Perrin <per...@apotheon.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 01:39:21PM +0000, Traiano Welcome wrote:
> > >
> Unfortunately, patent law and copyright law are very different
> environments. The truth is that probably every nontrivial piece of

yes.

> software created infringes several patents, and the only question that
> remains is whether those patents would hold up in court under close

The best tool against any patents is prior art.

The open source scene misses a very simple platform. Even FreeBSD could
offer an extra list named 'prior-art' on which people can publish their
ideas. The moment the server starts distributing the e-mail, nobody can
claim a patent anywhere in the world for the idea mentioned.

> scrutiny. The greater the disparity in legal expertise and funding
> behind the two parties, the greater the likelihood that the case will
> be found in favor of the party with the greater resources.

Not true for cases of prior art.

>
> This is the reason software patents comprise such a blight on the
> world of software development. Even a frivolous patent that would

There is no difference for an engineer who works in other fields.

> not hold up through completion of litigation may serve its purpose by
> bankrupting a defendant before the case is concluded.

That party must have a real dumb patent attorney then.

>
> It is possible that Microsoft is going the way of SCO -- into its
> grave, having hung all its hopes on litigation. Along the way,
> though, it will probably do a lot of damage to a lot of people,
> projects, and businesses, and I just hope it doesn't get as far as
> the FreeBSD project or any FreeBSD users before things come crashing
> down.
>

It is all in the people's mind.

> (disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. Et
> cetera.)
>

This is an example of the real problem.

Erich

[Wojciech Puchar]

>> dumb software and hardware.
>
> You do realize that, that statement can be construed as a condemnation
> of non-Microsoft software, AKA open-source?

don't generalize everything. There are good software, bad software, closed
source software, open source software.

There are great open source software and complete trash open source
software.

now market is completely filled with personal computers and laptops, now
people want to get "smart"phones, "tablets", whatever where microsoft
already lost.

[Bill Tillman]

----- Original Message -----
From: C. P. Ghost <cpg...@cordula.ws>
To: freebsd-...@freebsd.org
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, August 2, 2012 7:20 PM
Subject: Re: Patent hit - MS goes after Linux - FreeBSD ?

On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 8:57 PM, Chad Perrin <per...@apotheon.com> wrote:

> It is possible that Microsoft is going the way of SCO -- into its grave,
> having hung all its hopes on litigation.  Along the way, though, it will
> probably do a lot of damage to a lot of people, projects, and businesses,
> and I just hope it doesn't get as far as the FreeBSD project or any
> FreeBSD users before things come crashing down.

Right!

Let's also hope that most patents that could harm us (should there
be some lurking out there) will have expired by then. Unless Congress
pulls a Mickey Mouse Protection Act-lookalike on patents by extending
them just as they did with Copyright.

But as usual with Congress, I wouldn't hold my breath: they aren't
exactly known for enacting reasonable and sensible laws. Especially
not when heavily lobbied by mega corps with deep pockets like MSFT,
Oracle, Apple and so on. Yes, things will get really nasty once those
corporations go the way of the SCO.

> (disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.  This is not legal advice.  Et cetera.)
>

> --
> Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]

Regards,
-cpghost.

--
Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/

_______________________________________________
freebsd-...@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org"

For M$ to talk about patent infringment is like the kettle calling the pot black.
Ever take a copy of M$ ftp.exe and place it on a unix machine and then run
this on it:

strings.exe ftp.exe | grep Copyright

Just see what you find there.

And don't forget, if you've got an operating system...you didn't build that.
Someone else did.

[Robert Bonomi]

> From: Bill Tillman <btill...@yahoo.com>
> Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 05:09:00 -0700 (PDT)

> Subject: Re: Patent hit - MS goes after Linux - FreeBSD ?
>

> > From: C. P. Ghost <cpg...@cordula.ws>
> > Subject: Re: Patent hit - MS goes after Linux - FreeBSD ?
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 8:57 PM, Chad Perrin <per...@apotheon.com> wrote:
> > > It is possible that Microsoft is going the way of SCO -- into its
> > > grave, having hung all its hopes on litigation. Along the way, though,
> > > it will probably do a lot of damage to a lot of people, projects, and
> > > businesses, and I just hope it doesn't get as far as the FreeBSD
> > > project or any FreeBSD users before things come crashing down.
> >
> > Right!
> >
> > Let's also hope that most patents that could harm us (should there be
> > some lurking out there) will have expired by then. Unless Congress pulls
> > a Mickey Mouse Protection Act-lookalike on patents by extending them just
> > as they did with Copyright.
> >
> > But as usual with Congress, I wouldn't hold my breath: they aren't
> > exactly known for enacting reasonable and sensible laws. Especially not
> > when heavily lobbied by mega corps with deep pockets like MSFT, Oracle,
> > Apple and so on. Yes, things will get really nasty once those
> > corporations go the way of the SCO.
> >
> > > (disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. Et cetera.)
> > >
> > > --
> > > Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
> >
> > Regards,
> > -cpghost.
>

> For M$ to talk about patent infringment is like the kettle calling the
> pot black. Ever take a copy of M$ ftp.exe and place it on a unix machine
> and then run this on it:
>
> strings.exe ftp.exe | grep Copyright
>
> Just see what you find there.

And you think this is surprising, why?

Have you ever read the actual U.C. Berkeley License for, say, the
BSD 4.4-Lite software source-code distribution?

Do you know that Microsoft has a *PAID*FOR* license, for using, AND
redistributing, Unix; -both- from the University of Calif. (for "BSD"),
_and_ from what was then AT&T Bell Labs (for "Sys V")?

Do you think MS is doing something 'improper' by preserving the copyright
notice in _licensed_ code that they are *LEGALLY* using?

BTW 'copyright' and 'patent' are two _very_ different subjects, with
different rules, and governed by different laws.

[Wojciech Puchar]

> Let's also hope that most patents that could harm us (should there
> be some lurking out there) will have expired by then.

True. As most "technology" that ever microsoft "invented" is a quickly
reengineered or just stoled things that was already done many years
before in many other systems, very often BSD, then it is not a problem

> Unless Congress
> pulls a Mickey Mouse Protection Act-lookalike on patents by extending
> them just as they did with Copyright.
>

then it will still hit USA users only. FreeBSD master site can simply be
moved.

> But as usual with Congress, I wouldn't hold my breath: they aren't
> exactly known for enacting reasonable and sensible laws.

No government is known for that. but that's off topic.

[kpn...@pobox.com]

On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 09:09:33AM -0500, Robert Bonomi wrote:
> BTW 'copyright' and 'patent' are two _very_ different subjects, with
> different rules, and governed by different laws.

And commonly have different lawyers since knowledge of one only sometimes
translates to the other. Patent law, for example, does not have "fair use".
And independent invention is a defence to allegations of copyright
infringement, but it is _not_ a defense to patent infringement.

Really, much confusion can be traced back to the term "intellectual
property". Use of this term encourages people to think of different branches
of law as somehow being the similar to each other and to physical property
law. This is a serious mistake for a number of reasons.

There are a number of essays on the error of the term "intellectual property"
that are very good despite coming from Richard Stallman. A quick google
is quite helpful.

If you go back and reread this thread you'll see this mistake underneath
more than one post. For example, being clear on the copyright to all the
source in FreeBSD does _zero_ in terms of protecting FreeBSD from claims
of patent infringement.

Software patents in practice are both so general and so stupid that there
is zilch that FreeBSD, or any other organization or individual, can do to
avoid accidentally infringing.

--
"A method for inducing cats to exercise consists of directing a beam of
invisible light produced by a hand-held laser apparatus onto the floor ...
in the vicinity of the cat, then moving the laser ... in an irregular way
fascinating to cats,..." -- US patent 5443036, "Method of exercising a cat"

[Julian H. Stacey]

> This is the reason software patents comprise such a blight on the world
> of software development.

Yes, agreed, & not just software.

The european patent office system pressures examiners towards granting
if they can't quickly find prove the application is already known.

http://www.berklix.com/~jhs/txt/patents/

Cheers,
Julian
--
Julian Stacey, BSD Unix Linux C Sys Eng Consultants Munich http://berklix.com
Reply below not above, cumulative like a play script, & indent with "> ".
Format: Plain text. Not HTML, multipart/alternative, base64, quoted-printable.
Mail from Yahoo & Hotmail to be dumped @Berklix. http://berklix.org/yahoo/

[C. P. Ghost]

On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Julian H. Stacey <j...@berklix.com> wrote:
>> This is the reason software patents comprise such a blight on the world
>> of software development.
>
> Yes, agreed, & not just software.
>
> The european patent office system pressures examiners towards granting
> if they can't quickly find prove the application is already known.
>
> http://www.berklix.com/~jhs/txt/patents/

Sadly, the time they had the likes of Albert Einstein as patent
examiners [1] are well over...

[1]: https://www.ige.ch/en/about-us/einstein/einstein-at-the-patent-office.html

> Cheers,
> Julian

-cpghost.

--
Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/

[kpn...@pobox.com]

On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 04:09:06PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> >Unless Congress
> >pulls a Mickey Mouse Protection Act-lookalike on patents by extending
> >them just as they did with Copyright.
> >
>
> then it will still hit USA users only. FreeBSD master site can simply be
> moved.

If we're talking about patent infringement then moving FreeBSD outside of
the country does zero to protect users of FreeBSD. Every single one of
them that uses a part of FreeBSD that a patent holder claims infringes on
a patent is vulnerable to a lawsuit.

Also, if you pay attention to the news then you see in the DMCA, ACTA, the
TPP, and other examples that the US is trying to get the rest of the world
to adopt its views. The weird thinking that people in government have is
that the solution to a bad law that affects only the US is to get other
countries to adopt the same bad law so as to hurt everyone everywhere.

But, at the end of the day I think FreeBSD should worry about patent
infringement the way people worry about dying in a car wreck: Use a
reasonable amount of care to avoid it, and then don't worry about it.

--
Kevin P. Neal http://www.pobox.com/~kpn/

"A pig's gotta fly." - Crimson Pig

[Mikel King]

On Aug 3, 2012, at 12:42 PM, kpn...@pobox.com wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 04:09:06PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
>>> Unless Congress
>>> pulls a Mickey Mouse Protection Act-lookalike on patents by extending
>>> them just as they did with Copyright.
>>>
>>
>> then it will still hit USA users only. FreeBSD master site can simply be
>> moved.
>
> If we're talking about patent infringement then moving FreeBSD outside of
> the country does zero to protect users of FreeBSD. Every single one of
> them that uses a part of FreeBSD that a patent holder claims infringes on
> a patent is vulnerable to a lawsuit.
>
> Also, if you pay attention to the news then you see in the DMCA, ACTA, the
> TPP, and other examples that the US is trying to get the rest of the world
> to adopt its views. The weird thinking that people in government have is
> that the solution to a bad law that affects only the US is to get other
> countries to adopt the same bad law so as to hurt everyone everywhere.
>
> But, at the end of the day I think FreeBSD should worry about patent
> infringement the way people worry about dying in a car wreck: Use a
> reasonable amount of care to avoid it, and then don't worry about it.
>
> --
> Kevin P. Neal http://www.pobox.com/~kpn/

Out of curiosity has anyone ever heard of trolls patenting open source technologies after the fact?

[Sean Cavanaugh]

>
>
> Out of curiosity has anyone ever heard of trolls patenting open source
> technologies after the fact?

The prior art stipulations pretty much kills that off, unless they make a
genuine improvement/change to it to not qualify under that, then they would
be well within patent law to apply for a patent.

[Wojciech Puchar]

>
> Also, if you pay attention to the news then you see in the DMCA, ACTA, the
> TPP, and other examples that the US is trying to get the rest of the world
> to adopt its views.

of course they try to force everything to the world. And failed in europe,
mostly because of Poles.

Which of course doesn't mean that Poles are by average bright enough to
actually understand what ACTA really means ;)

[Daniel Rudy]

--- On Fri, 8/3/12, kpn...@pobox.com <kpn...@pobox.com> wrote:

From: kpn...@pobox.com <kpn...@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: Patent hit - MS goes after Linux - FreeBSD ?

To: "Wojciech Puchar" <woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
Cc: "freebsd-...@freebsd.org" <freebsd-...@freebsd.org>
Date: Friday, August 3, 2012, 9:42 AM

On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 04:09:06PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> >Unless Congress
> >pulls a Mickey Mouse Protection Act-lookalike on patents by extending
> >them just as they did with Copyright.
> >
>
> then it will still hit USA users only. FreeBSD master site can simply be
> moved.

If we're talking about patent infringement then moving FreeBSD outside of
the country does zero to protect users of FreeBSD. Every single one of
them that uses a part of FreeBSD that a patent holder claims infringes on
a patent is vulnerable to a lawsuit.

Also, if you pay attention to the news then you see in the DMCA, ACTA, the
TPP, and other examples that the US is trying to get the rest of the world

to adopt its views. The weird thinking that people in government have is
that the solution to a bad law that affects only the US is to get other
countries to adopt the same bad law so as to hurt everyone everywhere.

But, at the end of the day I think FreeBSD should worry about patent
infringement the way people worry about dying in a car wreck: Use a
reasonable amount of care to avoid it, and then don't worry about it.

--
Kevin P. Neal                                http://www.pobox.com/~kpn/

                    "A pig's gotta fly." - Crimson Pig

_______________________________________________
freebsd-...@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org"

Reading this thread, I've decided to add my 2 cents...  Being from the US, there's alot of people who are not happy with the DCMA, copyrights, and patents in general.  Did you know that the type of patent determines how long it is for?  Pharmaceutical patents are valid for 7 years then it's fair game to anyone (generic drugs).  Software patents are valid for 20 years in the US.  Why?  I have no idea myself.  Maybe someone who is reading can explain.  Copyright is ridiculous.  It should be set at 30 years and no more.  95 years after the death of the author is a little excessive.  I can understand the author and the kids getting royalties, but grandkids and great-grandkids?  A big difference between copyright and patents is that copyright is constitutional (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8), patents are not.  The reason why patents came up was that back around 1900 when automobile manufacturing was getting started, companies would copy each
others ideas.  You come up with something, then a week later all of your competitors stole your idea and was implementing it in their products.  But this is venturing into off-topic territory.

I remember a big stink back in around 2007 or so where someone went through the Linux operating system (Not just the kernel mind you), and said that Linux infringes on 235 or so Microsoft patents.  They refused to say what patents were being infringed on because they didn't want to screw the open source community.  But by not saying what those patents were, they did screw the open source community.  The problem is that Microsoft isn't telling where the violations are so they cannot be removed.  They are during the court cases, but I haven't seen anything as to which patents are being violated.  Then again, I haven't been following the court cases either.  In fact, if one thinks about it, it would be in Microsoft's best interest to not disclose what patents are being infringed on because if they did, then the infringing code would be reworked or removed, leaving Microsoft with no recourse against companies who use Linux.  What it comes down to is
that Microsoft is making sure that they have an income.  It's pretty smart on their part, but it's still unethical and even nefarious if you ask me.

As for software development, I don't look at patents, I don't even talk about patents.  That way later on if someone comes up and says that I am infringing on their patent, I can ask them patent and claim number, and what particular part of the code that is infringing, and I can claim that I have no knowledge of that patent.  If you look at precedent, the innocent infringer (although no defense) is usually given a slap on the wrist when compared to the intentional infringer.

When it comes to the technology sector, at least in the US, you're either getting sued, suing someone, or both.  And it has gotten much worse over the last decade or so.  This is why major companies like Apple, Microsoft, Samsung, RIM, Nokia, Broadcomm, etc. accumulate patents in mass.  It's usually to protect themselves from patent lawsuits.  Just imagine if everyone sued for every little infringement.  It would be far worse than it is now. 

Case in point: Apple vs. Samsung.  Apple says Samsung copied the iPhone and iPad.  Apple is claiming patent infringement.  The patents involved cover "design look and feel" which I think is utter bullshit.  As it turns out, Apple has been sliding on the iPhone and iPad sales while Samsung has been gaining market share.  That's the motivation right there...anti competitiveness.  So, Samsung went over what they can leverage to protect themselves and found that Apple's iPhone and iPad are infringing some very core wireless technology patents.  With that in mind, Samsung can go and make EVERYBODY pay up.  But they are not.  Just some food for though.


I'm not a lawyer, so you should seek legal advise if you need it.

[Chad Perrin]

On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 01:20:08AM +0200, C. P. Ghost wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 8:57 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:
> > It is possible that Microsoft is going the way of SCO -- into its grave,
> > having hung all its hopes on litigation. Along the way, though, it will
> > probably do a lot of damage to a lot of people, projects, and businesses,
> > and I just hope it doesn't get as far as the FreeBSD project or any
> > FreeBSD users before things come crashing down.
>
> Right!
>

> Let's also hope that most patents that could harm us (should there

> be some lurking out there) will have expired by then. Unless Congress

> pulls a Mickey Mouse Protection Act-lookalike on patents by extending
> them just as they did with Copyright.
>

> But as usual with Congress, I wouldn't hold my breath: they aren't

> exactly known for enacting reasonable and sensible laws. Especially
> not when heavily lobbied by mega corps with deep pockets like MSFT,
> Oracle, Apple and so on. Yes, things will get really nasty once those
> corporations go the way of the SCO.

Good luck with that. More new patents are registered every day than the
previous, generally speaking. There are patents expiring every day, only
to be replaced by more. For every one that falls, two take its place.

Microsoft is a special case. It has actually been rattling its saber at
open source OSes already, so it's something of an immediate threat. Most
software patents are basically just a latent threat that won't ever
really arise, as long as you don't make a whole lot of money with a web
application or service of some kind. Thus, hope that Microsoft runs out
of money before it gets around to suing anything FreeBSD-related, and
that its patents don't then pass into the hands of the most egregious
patent trolls out there, because this would mean that what is probably
the most immediate patent threat to FreeBSD is gone.

--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]

[Chad Perrin]

On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 02:32:11PM -0400, Sean Cavanaugh wrote:
> >
> > Out of curiosity has anyone ever heard of trolls patenting open source
> > technologies after the fact?
>
> The prior art stipulations pretty much kills that off, unless they make a
> genuine improvement/change to it to not qualify under that, then they would
> be well within patent law to apply for a patent.

. . . in theory. In practice, if you don't have the resources to mount a
serious defense against a deep-pockets patent holder, prior art isn't
going to get you far.

[Chad Perrin]

On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 10:27:50AM -0400, kpn...@pobox.com wrote:
>
> There are a number of essays on the error of the term "intellectual property"
> that are very good despite coming from Richard Stallman.

Your phrasing is hilariously accurate.

>
> If you go back and reread this thread you'll see this mistake underneath
> more than one post. For example, being clear on the copyright to all the
> source in FreeBSD does _zero_ in terms of protecting FreeBSD from claims
> of patent infringement.
>
> Software patents in practice are both so general and so stupid that there
> is zilch that FreeBSD, or any other organization or individual, can do to
> avoid accidentally infringing.

The conflation of different forms of "intellectual property" in the minds
of many is probably largely to blame for the fatuous nonsense of people
preferring the Apache License 2.0 over (for instance) the Simplified BSD
License (aka FreeBSD License) for its patent clause. People are often so
unaware of the differences between copyright law and patent law that they
think a patent clause provides the same protections against malicious
patent litigation as copyright licensing provides against malicious
copyright litigation. The truth of the matter is that a copyright is
held by a single entity, while patents differing only in phrasing and
patent number, covering the same basic software behavior, could in theory
be held by every single member of the human race. As a result, a
copyright license provides protection against litigation by the one and
only copyright holder, but the patent clause in that license only
provides protection against litigation by one potential patent holder out
of billions.

I believe the main reason that people choose the Apache License 2.0 is
simply the lack of a copyfree license that comes with a patent clause
(and, for all the talk of the Apache License 2.0 being a "permissive"
license, it falls well short of being a copyfree license like the
Simplified BSD License). That's why I rolled my own copyfree license
with a patent clause, even though I believe that in practice a patent
clause provides about as much protection as a "life vest" provides
against gunfire.

>
> "A method for inducing cats to exercise consists of directing a beam of
> invisible light produced by a hand-held laser apparatus onto the floor ...
> in the vicinity of the cat, then moving the laser ... in an irregular way
> fascinating to cats,..." -- US patent 5443036, "Method of exercising a cat"

That's hilarious, and awfully depressing.

[Chad Perrin]

On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 06:15:21PM +0200, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
> > This is the reason software patents comprise such a blight on the world
> > of software development.
>
> Yes, agreed, & not just software.

Well, yeah, but I was trying to stay close to being on-topic.

>
> The european patent office system pressures examiners towards granting
> if they can't quickly find prove the application is already known.

The same applies in the US.

[Chad Perrin]

On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 08:14:33AM +0700, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 12:57:59 -0600
> Chad Perrin <per...@apotheon.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 01:39:21PM +0000, Traiano Welcome wrote:
> > > >
> > Unfortunately, patent law and copyright law are very different
> > environments. The truth is that probably every nontrivial piece of
>
> yes.
>
> > software created infringes several patents, and the only question that
> > remains is whether those patents would hold up in court under close
>
> The best tool against any patents is prior art.

. . . assuming you have enough resources to throw at lawyers to
effectively fight your case in court.

>
> The open source scene misses a very simple platform. Even FreeBSD could
> offer an extra list named 'prior-art' on which people can publish their
> ideas. The moment the server starts distributing the e-mail, nobody can
> claim a patent anywhere in the world for the idea mentioned.

That would be nice.

>
> > scrutiny. The greater the disparity in legal expertise and funding
> > behind the two parties, the greater the likelihood that the case will
> > be found in favor of the party with the greater resources.
>
> Not true for cases of prior art.

Do lawyers not use the law to their clients' advatage -- often abusing it
-- just because they're wrong in the final analysis? That is not what I
have seen. What I have seen is that a company like SCO can drag out
proceedings for most of a decade (2003 to 2010 before the final nail in
the Novell v. SCO matter was pounded in, but SCO is *still* suing IBM)
when it not only cannot produce evidence of any infringing code, but
doesn't even own the copyrights in question. It would take substantially
less than a year for a big corporation to make my little LLC go under,
regardless of how good a lawyer I can find. In fact, the better the
lawyer, the more quickly I'm likely to run out of money to fight the
case, because of the rate I'd have to pay a better lawyer.

An accountant would be a better investment, to help me save as much money
as possible in the midst of a full-scale legal retreat.

Contrary to what you seem to want to imply here, in civil suits the guy
with the resources usually wins -- especially in matters like patent
infringement, where a bunch of hand-wavy nonsense on a piece of paper can
usually be interpreted however the better funded legal team wants it to
be interpreted.

> >
> > This is the reason software patents comprise such a blight on the

> > world of software development. Even a frivolous patent that would
>
> There is no difference for an engineer who works in other fields.

That's a fair statement. I wasn't trying to exclude other fields; I was
just speaking specifically about software development.

>
> > not hold up through completion of litigation may serve its purpose by
> > bankrupting a defendant before the case is concluded.
>
> That party must have a real dumb patent attorney then.

. . . or very little money relative to the other party. I suppose
dollars are equivalent to IQ points in your view.

> >
> > It is possible that Microsoft is going the way of SCO -- into its
> > grave, having hung all its hopes on litigation. Along the way,
> > though, it will probably do a lot of damage to a lot of people,
> > projects, and businesses, and I just hope it doesn't get as far as
> > the FreeBSD project or any FreeBSD users before things come crashing
> > down.
>

> It is all in the people's mind.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here.

>
> > (disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. Et
> > cetera.)
>

> This is an example of the real problem.

What -- the fact that I understand the law enough to not want to get sued
by someone who's dumb enough to take advice from a mailing list on how to
handle a patent suit?

Are you a patent lawyer? If not, perhaps the real problem in this
exchange is *your* lack of understanding of how things work.

[Wojciech Puchar]

> Do lawyers not use the law to their clients' advatage -- often abusing it
> -- just because they're wrong in the final analysis?

seems you never worked long with lawyers, or you are lucky and have really
fair one. If the word "fair" can be used for lawyers at all.

Most often they just want court cases to have "work".

[Robert Bonomi]

> Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 14:34:35 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Daniel Rudy <dr2...@pacbell.net>

> Subject: Re: Patent hit - MS goes after Linux - FreeBSD ?
>

> ...... A big difference between copyright

> and patents is that copyright is constitutional (Article 1, Section 8,
> Clause 8), patents are not.

FALSE TO FACT.

Quoting from Article 1, Section 8:

"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries,:

Congress is _expressly_ authorized to secure "for limited times to ...
invetors the esclusive right to their ... inventions".

> The reason why patents came up was that back
> around 1900 when automobile manufacturing was getting started, companies
> would copy each others ideas. You come up with something, then a week

> competitors stole your idea and was implementing it in their products.

Pure, undiluted, male bovine excrement. <grin>

Fact: the U.S. had been issuing patents for over ONE HUNDRED YEARS by
that time. The first patent under the _current_ numbering sytem was
issued on July 13, 1836, with 9,957 patents issued prior to that
numberinng system -- the first of which was issued o 7/4, 1790.

Now, applying for a patent =was= a convoluted, lengthy (as in -years-),
and time-consuming, process -- which a lot of inventors did -not- bother
with, unless they saw relatiely "immmediate" opportunities for it to
generate commercial revenue. And such 'unprotected' work _was_ 'fair
game' for copying. Which was a _good_ thing for the then-nascent auto-
motive industry. Imagine the mayhem if somebody had pateted the
steering wheel, the gear-shift lever/mechanism, or the arrangement of
the foot-pedals. Somebody who learned to drive a Ford, wouldn't be
able to drive an Olds, etc.

[John Levine]

>> Out of curiosity has anyone ever heard of trolls patenting open source
>> technologies after the fact?
>
>The prior art stipulations pretty much kills that off, unless they make a
>genuine improvement/change to it to not qualify under that, then they would
>be well within patent law to apply for a patent.

The patent office has never been very good at examining software
patents, and I have made a lot of money helping companies document the
prior art not cited in patents that are being asserted against them.

R's,
John

[Wojciech Puchar]

>> be well within patent law to apply for a patent.
>
> The patent office has never been very good at examining software
> patents, and I have made a lot of money helping companies document the
> prior art not cited in patents that are being asserted against them.

good there are people that helps.

Bad that there are patents at all. Not just in software.

[Robert Huff]

Wojciech Puchar writes:

> Bad that there are patents at all. Not just in software.

Patents are - or should be - the means, not the end. The end
is encourage people to create new stuff; the means of encouragement
is to give them exclusive rights for a limited time. As long as the
idea gets out there, we should be indifferent as to whether they
make money.


Robert Huff

[Jerry]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 08:48:56 -0400
Robert Huff articulated:

>
>
> Wojciech Puchar writes:
>
> > Bad that there are patents at all. Not just in software.
>
> Patents are - or should be - the means, not the end. The end
> is encourage people to create new stuff; the means of encouragement
> is to give them exclusive rights for a limited time. As long as the
> idea gets out there, we should be indifferent as to whether they
> make money.

I agree up to the point about financial incentive. For myself, I like
making money. I don't apologize for that. Most engineers, software /
hardware designers also enjoy receiving a monetary reward for their
hard work. Simple giving away our hard work, sweat and time to some
socialist just because they feel they have the right to the hard work of
others is repulsive. If a monetary reward were removed from the
equation, we would probably still be using an abacus in the dark. While
we certainly should be indifferent to the financial incentive and
monetary reward someone receives; in all too many cases that is just
not so. The socialists still feel they are entitled to something for
nothing.

--
Jerry ♔

Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the Reply-To header.
__________________________________________________________________

[Robert Huff]

Jerry writes:

> I agree up to the point about financial incentive. For myself, I
> like making money. I don't apologize for that. Most engineers,
> software / hardware designers also enjoy receiving a monetary
> reward for their hard work. Simple giving away our hard work,
> sweat and time to some socialist just because they feel they have
> the right to the hard work of others is repulsive.

Would you call Jeff Bezos (CEO of Amazon) a socialist?
Some years ago, he was giving an interview and was asked "Jeff,
Amazon has applied for a patent for the One-Click system. If Amazon had
known before it started there was no chance of receiving a patent -
would it have created One-Click anyway?"
[While I'm paraphasing, the essential content is preserved.]
There was a long pause, during which you could tell Bezos
understood _precisely_ what the real question was ...
... and (to his credit) answered "Yes."

The programmers got paid.
Amazon gets paid in the form of more expedient processing and
(presumably) more sales due to ease of check-out.
Why, as a society, should we deny other innovators the ability
to use that technology to develop - hopefully - even better stuff?


Robert Huff

[Jerry]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 12:25:31 -0400
Robert Huff articulated:

> Jerry writes:
>
> > I agree up to the point about financial incentive. For myself, I
> > like making money. I don't apologize for that. Most engineers,
> > software / hardware designers also enjoy receiving a monetary
> > reward for their hard work. Simple giving away our hard work,
> > sweat and time to some socialist just because they feel they have
> > the right to the hard work of others is repulsive.
>
> Would you call Jeff Bezos (CEO of Amazon) a socialist?
> Some years ago, he was giving an interview and was asked
> "Jeff, Amazon has applied for a patent for the One-Click system. If
> Amazon had known before it started there was no chance of receiving a
> patent - would it have created One-Click anyway?"
> [While I'm paraphasing, the essential content is preserved.]
> There was a long pause, during which you could tell Bezos
> understood _precisely_ what the real question was ...
> ... and (to his credit) answered "Yes."
>
> The programmers got paid.
> Amazon gets paid in the form of more expedient processing and
> (presumably) more sales due to ease of check-out.
> Why, as a society, should we deny other innovators the ability
> to use that technology to develop - hopefully - even better stuff?

You are all over the board here. Nothing ever stops anyone from doing
something for nothing. Hell, I have written some small software
applications that I never expected to make a dime off. With that said,
should I come up with some brilliant idea or killer software
applications, I fully intend to protect my rights and make as much off
of it as possible.

I never stated than anyone should be denied the right to create or write
basically whatever they so desire; however, if they are going to
piggyback their work on another author or developer's works, then that
individual deserves to receive compensation.

--
Jerry ♔

Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the Reply-To header.
__________________________________________________________________

[C. P. Ghost]

On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Jerry <je...@seibercom.net> wrote:
> I never stated than anyone should be denied the right to create or write
> basically whatever they so desire; however, if they are going to
> piggyback their work on another author or developer's works, then that
> individual deserves to receive compensation.

The point here is that an INDIVIDUAL deserves compensation.

Whether some mega corp with a huge portfolio of patents deserves
the same is to be questioned. Especially considering that those huge
mega corps use those patents to stomp all over the little (programmer)
guy and destroy his little livelihood. That's what patents were initially
designed to prevent: that some predatory industrial magnate would
steal the idea of the little inventor to make a profit, without compensating
the inventor for his ideas.

Sadly, this principle (protecting the little inventors) has been turned
upside-down due to the abysmal performance of the Patent Office
examiners who rubber stamping just about every patent application
with the words "machinery for ..." in it.

-cpghost.

--
Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/

[Mario Lobo]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 09:33:20 -0400
Jerry <je...@seibercom.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 08:48:56 -0400
> Robert Huff articulated:
>

[Snip]

> The socialists still feel they are entitled to something
> for nothing.
>

Jerry;

Forgive me for barging in like this but to me, what your sentence
describes is just plain good old greedy people. Patents provided
the perfect LEGAL way for these very people to make theirs, an idea that
they didn't think of or had the gift/talent to create, as a quickie
for profit. The result: Now the long patent arm reaches fruit, seeds
and DNA. This means that I can't "create" a Graviola juice drink (local
Brazilian fruit) because a Japanese guy patented the fruit !! How
ridiculous did we allowed this to get?

On a final note, if your sentence were to reflect a little better the
idea of socialism (at least on paper), it should read:

"The socialists still feel that everybody is entitled to something
for nothing."

Unfortunately today, socialism, democracy, communism or liberalism are
mere skins for hungry wolves.

--
Mario Lobo
http://www.mallavoodoo.com.br
FreeBSD since 2.2.8 [not Pro-Audio.... YET!!] (99% winblows FREE)

[Jerry]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 21:43:21 -0300
Mario Lobo articulated:

> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 09:33:20 -0400
> Jerry <je...@seibercom.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 08:48:56 -0400
> > Robert Huff articulated:
> >
> [Snip]
>
> > The socialists still feel they are entitled to something
> > for nothing.
> >
> Jerry;
>
> Forgive me for barging in like this but to me, what your sentence
> describes is just plain good old greedy people. Patents provided
> the perfect LEGAL way for these very people to make theirs, an idea
> that they didn't think of or had the gift/talent to create, as a
> quickie for profit. The result: Now the long patent arm reaches
> fruit, seeds and DNA. This means that I can't "create" a Graviola
> juice drink (local Brazilian fruit) because a Japanese guy patented
> the fruit !! How ridiculous did we allowed this to get?

Yes you can. You are stating a commonly held incorrect belief. You can
always request a license from the patient holder. No one, well no one
interested in monetary compensation would patient anything unless they
were:

⁽¹⁾ Intended to use the patents in such a way that they would directly profit from it

⁽²⁾ Intended to lease the patent rights or outright sell the patent.

Patients protect hard working people who may work years, maybe half
their life to come up with a killer idea only to have a douche bag come
along and use it sans payments.

Interestingly enough, you seem to equate an entity, individual, group
or corporation that want to profit off of their work and investment as
greedy. I call them entitled. With that said, feel free to develop some
great idea and then give it away for nothing. No one, certainly not me,
is going to stop you.

--
Jerry ♔

Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the Reply-To header.
__________________________________________________________________

[Mario Lobo]

On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 08:16:38 -0400

Discussion moved off-list.

--
Mario Lobo
http://www.mallavoodoo.com.br
FreeBSD since 2.2.8 [not Pro-Audio.... YET!!] (99% winblows FREE)

[Chad Perrin]

On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 12:25:31PM -0400, Robert Huff wrote:
> Jerry writes:
> >
> > I agree up to the point about financial incentive. For myself, I
> > like making money. I don't apologize for that. Most engineers,
> > software / hardware designers also enjoy receiving a monetary
> > reward for their hard work. Simple giving away our hard work,
> > sweat and time to some socialist just because they feel they have
> > the right to the hard work of others is repulsive.
>
> Would you call Jeff Bezos (CEO of Amazon) a socialist?
> Some years ago, he was giving an interview and was asked "Jeff,
> Amazon has applied for a patent for the One-Click system. If Amazon
> had
> known before it started there was no chance of receiving a patent -
> would it have created One-Click anyway?"
> [While I'm paraphasing, the essential content is preserved.]
> There was a long pause, during which you could tell Bezos
> understood _precisely_ what the real question was ...
> ... and (to his credit) answered "Yes."
>
> The programmers got paid.
> Amazon gets paid in the form of more expedient processing and
> (presumably) more sales due to ease of check-out.
> Why, as a society, should we deny other innovators the ability
> to use that technology to develop - hopefully - even better stuff?

Patents don't encourage innovation. They primarily do three things:

1. They direct innovative effort away from non-patentable things and
toward patentable things, even when the patentable things are less
actually innovative or useful.

2. They favor large corporations with the resources to pursue patent
litigation and build gigantic patent portfolios, thus creating hurdles
for smaller business endeavors to become successful.

3. They encourage more time and resources to be spent on patent filing
than on actual research and development.

4. They support a specialized lawyer class, which naturally evolves into
an entire industry of patent trolling.

5. They make small organizations and individuals afraid to innovate
because they fear they might run afoul of patents, and make large
organizations waste a bunch of time and money buying other companies just
for their patent portfolios so they have more ammunition with which to
defend themselves against other patent-holders in a kind of "mutually
assured destruction" arms race deterrence scheme.

I guess three wasn't enough to list the major negatives of the patent
system. I could come up with more, given a little time. Ultimately, the
patent system is in many ways the opposite of a free market. In fact,
the socialistic "labor theory of value" is a much more effective basis
for justifying a patent system than any concepts of economic schools of
thought more oriented toward free market capitalism, because patents are
designed to "protect" a labor resources investment in the patentable
"invention", rather than any kind of actual proprietary investment.

--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]

[Steve O'Hara-Smith]

On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 08:16:38 -0400
Jerry <je...@seibercom.net> wrote:

> Yes you can. You are stating a commonly held incorrect belief. You can
> always request a license from the patient holder. No one, well no one
> interested in monetary compensation would patient anything unless they
> were:
>
> ⁽¹⁾ Intended to use the patents in such a way that they would directly
> profit from it
>
> ⁽²⁾ Intended to lease the patent rights or outright sell the patent.

[3] Want to prevent anyone else from using it to break into their market.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/

[Chad Perrin]

On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 07:57:34AM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> >Do lawyers not use the law to their clients' advatage -- often abusing it
> >-- just because they're wrong in the final analysis?
> seems you never worked long with lawyers, or you are lucky and have
> really fair one. If the word "fair" can be used for lawyers at all.
>
> Most often they just want court cases to have "work".

I'm not sure you understood what I said, because what *you* said here
seems irrelevant to what I said.

--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]

[Jerry]

On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 18:37:17 +0100
Steve O'Hara-Smith articulated:

> On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 08:16:38 -0400
> Jerry <je...@seibercom.net> wrote:
>
> > Yes you can. You are stating a commonly held incorrect belief. You
> > can always request a license from the patient holder. No one, well
> > no one interested in monetary compensation would patient anything
> > unless they were:
> >
> > ⁽¹⁾ Intended to use the patents in such a way that they would
> > directly profit from it
> >
> > ⁽²⁾ Intended to lease the patent rights or outright sell the patent.
>
> [3] Want to prevent anyone else from using it to break into their
> market.

That would be inclusive in my 1st. reason I listed.

--
Jerry ♔

Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the Reply-To header.
__________________________________________________________________

[David Brodbeck]

On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Steve O'Hara-Smith <st...@sohara.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 08:16:38 -0400
> Jerry <je...@seibercom.net> wrote:
>
>> Yes you can. You are stating a commonly held incorrect belief. You can
>> always request a license from the patient holder. No one, well no one
>> interested in monetary compensation would patient anything unless they
>> were:
>>
>> ⁽¹⁾ Intended to use the patents in such a way that they would directly
>> profit from it
>>
>> ⁽²⁾ Intended to lease the patent rights or outright sell the patent.
>
> [3] Want to prevent anyone else from using it to break into their market.

Yes, but this comes with a trade-off.

Patents are for a LIMITED time. And in exchange for getting that
temporary monopoly, you have to publish the details of your invention.

The idea was not just to provide a monetary incentive for innovation,
but to ensure that those innovations became public knowledge. In the
absence of patents, companies tend to resort to trade secrets --
keeping the details of their innovations hidden. This can result in
"lost technologies" when a particular company goes under and takes its
trade secrets with it.

Now, it's reasonable to argue that in some fields the duration of that
limited monopoly is too long, given how quickly technology advances,
but that doesn't mean the concept isn't sound.

[Polytropon]

On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 19:08:19 +0000, David Brodbeck wrote:
> Now, it's reasonable to argue that in some fields the duration of that
> limited monopoly is too long, given how quickly technology advances,
> but that doesn't mean the concept isn't sound.

It's also debatable if one of today's most prominent use
of patents is fair: "I tell you! I have patents! You are
infringing! I'm not gonna tell you which patents about
what, but I'll sue all your users!" Of course, if such
a claim enters a court, it might be verified or discarded
(because it's just a claim, nothing applicable). In order
not to "risk" a lawsuit, it seems that spreading FUD is
often the more profitable way of using patents: "I told
you! I have patents! But if you pay me $$$, maybe I won't
sue you and your users. Maybe... but now PAY!!!"



--
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...

[Chad Perrin]

On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 09:33:20AM -0400, Jerry wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 08:48:56 -0400
> Robert Huff articulated:
> >

> > Patents are - or should be - the means, not the end. The end
> > is encourage people to create new stuff; the means of encouragement
> > is to give them exclusive rights for a limited time. As long as the
> > idea gets out there, we should be indifferent as to whether they
> > make money.
>

> I agree up to the point about financial incentive. For myself, I like
> making money. I don't apologize for that. Most engineers, software /
> hardware designers also enjoy receiving a monetary reward for their
> hard work. Simple giving away our hard work, sweat and time to some
> socialist just because they feel they have the right to the hard work of
> others is repulsive.

I'm okay with that statement.

>
> If a monetary reward were removed from the equation, we would probably
> still be using an abacus in the dark.

Cockamamie nonsense -- or, if you prefer, [citation needed].

>
> While we certainly should be indifferent to the financial incentive and
> monetary reward someone receives; in all too many cases that is just

> not so. The socialists still feel they are entitled to something for
> nothing.

. . . which need not have *anything* at all to do with a discussion of
whether a system of patents is a good or bad idea.

--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]

[Jerry]

On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 21:48:30 +0200
Polytropon articulated:

> On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 19:08:19 +0000, David Brodbeck wrote:
> > Now, it's reasonable to argue that in some fields the duration of
> > that limited monopoly is too long, given how quickly technology
> > advances, but that doesn't mean the concept isn't sound.
>
> It's also debatable if one of today's most prominent use
> of patents is fair: "I tell you! I have patents! You are
> infringing! I'm not gonna tell you which patents about
> what, but I'll sue all your users!" Of course, if such
> a claim enters a court, it might be verified or discarded
> (because it's just a claim, nothing applicable). In order
> not to "risk" a lawsuit, it seems that spreading FUD is
> often the more profitable way of using patents: "I told
> you! I have patents! But if you pay me $$$, maybe I won't
> sue you and your users. Maybe... but now PAY!!!"

How many verifiable (the key word here is verifiable) cases can you
name where party A paid party B over an undisclosed patient solely on
the bases that party B might institute legal action?

--
Jerry ♔

Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the Reply-To header.
__________________________________________________________________

[David Brodbeck]

On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Polytropon <fre...@edvax.de> wrote:
> It's also debatable if one of today's most prominent use
> of patents is fair: "I tell you! I have patents! You are
> infringing! I'm not gonna tell you which patents about
> what, but I'll sue all your users!" Of course, if such
> a claim enters a court, it might be verified or discarded
> (because it's just a claim, nothing applicable). In order
> not to "risk" a lawsuit, it seems that spreading FUD is
> often the more profitable way of using patents: "I told
> you! I have patents! But if you pay me $$$, maybe I won't
> sue you and your users. Maybe... but now PAY!!!"

The companies that do that are generally very large ones like
Microsoft. Frankly I'm not sure if you can do much about that kind of
behavior; a company of that size and wealth can always find plenty of
ways to harass its enemies. Perhaps, to paraphrase Grover Norquist,
we need to shrink corporations down until they're small enough that we
can drown them in the bathtub. ;)