Five Linux Companies Buy Software Patents 89
An anonymous reader writes "In order to protect themselves against patent grabbing 'trolls,' major Linux companies are buying software patents through a nonprofit company called Open Invention Network. This nonprofit company will then offer royalty-free licenses to companies and individuals that agreed not to assert their own patents."
Do you have to have patents to join? (Score:4, Insightful)
A Tale of Two Dudes (Score:4, Interesting)
Dude A loudly protested that there was constant innovation.
So I asked Dude B, who is among the hardest-core propeller-heads I've ever met. Dude B thought that packet switched networks were probably the last genuinely new idea.
Clearly, as a working stiff, I have no idea about these things. The fact that the PTO keeps puking new patents for these ideas must mean that there is some basis for them, no?
Re:A Tale of Two Dudes (Score:2, Funny)
Re:A Tale of Two Dudes (Score:1)
Have you seen the use to which Amazon.com has put the patent office [around.com]?
I think I'll patent a "procedure for simultaneously walking and chewing gum"
-- if it hasn't already been patented.
Sony is the patent killer! (Score:1)
*Gets some chips and coffee, preparing to watch Sony committing suicide*
But, seriously, I also wonder what the requirements for membership in this group is. This is a "if you don't sue me, then I won't sue you" club. But what if a corporation wants to join without holding any patents? They would get a lot out of joining, but not really have anything to contribute. Would they still be allowed to join?
So much for (Score:1)
I guess what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Re:So much for -- IT'S FOR DEFENSE (Score:1, Insightful)
If the current business climate includes tons and tons of dubious patents which can threaten your livelihood, your best defense is to get as many of your own as you can so when they come after you, you go after them -- a kind of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). IBM has been doing this for yea
Re:So much for -- IT'S FOR DEFENSE (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:So much for -- IT'S FOR DEFENSE (Score:2)
This nonprofit company will then offer royalty-free licenses to companies and individuals that agreed not to assert their own patents.
Actually, it seems a bit silly to me. I assume they mean, "agreed not to assert their own patents based on our patent". If so, is that not absurd, since you probably should not get a patent granted when it is based off of someone elses patent anyway?
Isn't this almost a good idea which falls short when it comes to the final method of defence (you can't pate
Re:So much for -- IT'S FOR DEFENSE (Score:2)
Re:So much for (Score:1)
Re:So much for (Score:1)
Re:So much for (Score:2)
Compare it to having a license. Before the GPL and other open-source software licenses, traditional software licensing wouldn't have fit into the open source world. However, it was incorporated the license in a way that maintained the ideals, while protecting the best interests of the movement.
That's what this is. They're adapting, but they're adapting in a way that maintains their id
Maybe necessary (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Maybe necessary (Score:1)
It sounds to me like the patent system is broken. =P
The five companies are :- (Score:2, Informative)
1) International Business Machines Corp. (IBM)
2) Sony Corp
3) Philips Electronics NV
4) Novell Inc. (SUSE)
5) Red Hat Inc
http://linux.slashdot.Re:The five companies are :- (Score:2)
If you are going to make a sensational comparison, at least make one that is within reason:
Imagine that the whole world is comprised by e.g. only the USA, or only the EU. Now imagine that the corporations within this world are "countries". Stocking up on software patents for defensive purposes is like stocking up
Re:The five companies are :- (Score:1)
Re:The five companies are :- (Score:1)
Re:The five companies are :- (Score:2)
Re:The five companies are :- (Score:3, Funny)
Hmm... since we've already had today's Sony DRM article... lemme check my Slashdot manual...
flip, flip, flip... ahhh here it is...
Yes, since we've alreay had today's Sony DRM article, the newer Sony "Defender of Freedom" article means that we must express undying love for Sony until the posting of tomorrow's Sony DRM article.
Re:The five companies are :- (Score:3, Interesting)
I knew I recognised this (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I knew I recognised this (Score:1)
Re:I knew I recognised this (Score:2)
Good! I'm glad it was re-posted. I didn't have computer access while
this article was posted yesterday so I'm glad I have a chance to see
it today.
I was actually out and about instead of sitting in front of the computer all day.
(awaits shocked replys)
You can read more about it ... (Score:1)
Gentlemen, start your engines (Score:4, Informative)
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/10
I guess it's not a complete dupe... the linked article for this post is different.
Re:Gentlemen, start your engines (Score:2, Funny)
1. It's odd that Sony is one of the companies
2. Sony is a big company
3. Sony is a big company
4. Sony is a big company
5. It's surprising to see so many heavyweights in an anti-patent trust
6. "Fuck you Sony" gets misspelled on occasions
7. Sony will help with cross-platform root kits
8. We shouldn't treat software patents as acceptable
That Didn't Take Long (Score:2, Informative)
Patents are not a defence (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM, Sony, Phillips and Novell aren't really Linux companies - they know that Free/Open/Libre software is the only way they are going to utilize the vastly under-utilized creative urges of the hackers of the world to fight their own enemies. GNU/Linux is just a primary weapon in their arsenal and they just want to keep it sharp.
Even more sadly, the more we use patents to fight patents, the less backing the fight against software patents is going to get. To quote:Re:Patents are not a defence (Score:4, Insightful)
1) Keep the alliance members in bed with one other, similar to the way that royal families throughout time have used marriage bonds to create extended relationships and maintain peace among kingdoms.
2) Dissuade Microsoft from exercising its "nuclear option" in a desperate measure to fend off the rise of Linux.
Re:Patents are not a defence (Score:2)
What a fantastic idea! (Score:1)
One certainly hopes so.
Re:What a fantastic idea! (Score:1)
No, no answer. (Score:2)
In any case, this initiative, with the appropriate safeguards, is exactly what the patent system needs.
Hmmmm ... (Score:2)
I wonder what this new company's policy is relative to individuals and companies that *DO NOT* agree "not to assert" their own patents [ed note: this sentence should be taken out and shot]. Note that 2 of the "investors" are IBM and Philips - two companies with massive patent portfolios. Do they, by virtue of being investors in this group get
In other news (Score:5, Funny)
anti-patent (Score:2, Interesting)
Color me cautiously hopeful.
Re:anti-patent (Score:1)
Slashdot needs to snag the patent... (Score:1)
Re:Slashdot needs to snag the patent... (Score:1)
Not an effective counter to threat of swpats (Score:3, Insightful)
Additionally, patent trolls are immune to this kind of patent pool since they tend not to create any software themselves and are therefore not vulnerable to software patents.
The real fix here is to wrestle the patent system back from the "intellectual property maximalists" and get rid of patents on software which do not motivate innovation (just try to name one useful innovation in software we wouldn't have were it not for software patents - they are occasionally a by-product of innovation, but never a motivator for it).
Re:Not an effective counter to threat of swpats (Score:2)
Congress-critters may still ignore this, but the asurdity will come into clearer focus for most non-techies. That's not a bad thing.
Exsqueeze me... (Score:2)
Wasn't OGG created specifically as an open (and free) alternative to the mpeg variants?
Weren't Free BSD and linux created as a response to their closed, proprietary and heavily licensed competitors?
Re:Exsqueeze me... (Score:2)
Re:So how many open source projects have been sued (Score:1)
Re:So how many open source projects have been sued (Score:1)
MPlayer [mplayerhq.hu] is at stake as well.
Fried air market (Score:2, Interesting)
USTPO never wanted to grant software paten (Score:5, Informative)
Sony? Teh Rootkit company? (Score:1)
There's not "one" Sony. (Score:2)
These have very different goals and their methods may vary. And this is interesting - Sony Xplod plays MP3 CD's, how can you explain that, if Sony is a member of the EVIL anti-mp3 anti-sharing RIAA?
Anyway if you want some heads to roll, blame these guys [sonybmg.com] for the rootkit.
One company is missing from the list... (Score:1)
Or maybe they don't want to touch software patents, because these are evil.
Re:One company is missing from the list... (Score:2)
and as was observed [slashdot.org], the motto may have just become...Do no evil. Unless you have shareholders?
The Best Way to Fix Things... (Score:1, Interesting)
I know this is just a pipe dream, they'd sooner be selling parkas in Hades before this happens but hear me out.
Restructure the Copyright Laws into different sets of rules that effectively protect each different variety of IP:
* Print Published Copyrights - These rules and laws would over only cover prin
Re:The Best Way to Fix Things... (Score:1)
So how long will this last? (Score:2, Interesting)
There have historically been no shortage of bad actors (ex: SCO, Rambus, MSFT, etc). I can envision a scenario where a company might join until their encumbered tech gets into the guts of Linux, then change hands/die off/spin off divisions/etc. so that the entity bound by the agreement is no longer the one holding the patent rights.
Even IBM's affection for Linux is unlikely to be eternal - are they equipping themselves with a big 'o
Re:So how long will this last? (Score:1)
ATT: You're stealing our IP; We're suing you.
Berkley: You're taking our code and removing the copyright so you can resell it.
ATT: Oh, right. Nevermind.
Berkely: No problem; Let's not discuss this again.
If there is enough cross polination of patents between the various participating vendors, it will be impossible to untangle it without destroying their own products. I'm guessing it would go something like this:
SCO
Re:So how long will this last? (Score:1)
Does anyone else get the feeling that all these guys are rats trying to grab whatever t
Here's my plan: (Score:2)
I'm fed up with this stupidity. I'm ready for the abolition of all patents. Let businesses try to compete based on their own merits for a change. Clearly, the potential to abuse the system in the name of playing stupid games with our courts has far out-weighed the benefit of securing one company's exclusive right to manufacture a given design.
I anticipate that this will not sit well with two classes of people: Micr
Re:Here's my plan: (Score:1)
1. Burn all patents/lawyers.
2. ???
3. Profit!
I can see how some vested interests might want to throw money at defeating this.
Won't work (Score:3, Interesting)
Business Method Patents (Score:1)
Sweet (Score:1)
Remembers me of... (Score:1)
Sony & Philips - the usual patent suspects (Score:1)
Google search [google.com]
The have patents on CD, DVD, DRM, FireWire, Video coding (MPEG-4 was effectively killed by licensing fees) etc, and they have been litigating the hell out of those.
Just something to think about.
Political positions of those companies on swpats (Score:2)
IBM: I was at a roundtable hosted by the German ministry of justice where IBM's Fritz Teufel was radically in favor of software patents. Toward the end of the legislative process, IBM distanced itself a little bit from Microsoft's position, at least to an extent that annoyed MSFT, but there's no indication whatsoever that they really were
Not Troll-proof (Score:2)
Patent "trolls" are not competitors. They are file-drawer companies that don't make anything and don't sell anything. You cannot kill a troll's business with your patent sword because they have no business.
OIN is a fine idea, but it is no defense against trolls.
Obligatory movie quote... (Score:1)
frightening? (Score:1)