Submitted by A database containing more than 500 software patents and backed by big-name vendors has been posted online to foster development of litigation-free open source. Open Source Development Labs has launched its Patent Commons Project with backing from IBM – the industry’s largest holder of technology patents – Computer Associates International, Novell, Red Hat, Intel and Sun Microsystems.
This is a grave mistake. It is now virtually impossible to write software without infringing on one patent or another, which is why the whole system sucks: trivial things are patented, and if we were to take every patent seriously, all software development would suddenly stop, except at big software development houses that have amassed a huge (devesive says Microsoft) patent portfolie. This is absurd (as in a Monty Python kinda way).
Linus for a long time advised devs not to look at software patents, because that would comprise willful infringement, which is worse than simply writing software, and (this is absolutely unavoidable) unwillingly infringe on one patent or another (which sometimes are held by companies that never did software development).
Tha article is pretty scarce on detail, but I assume (IBM, Novell, RH etc. is backing this after all) these are the patents that are freely available for use by the open source community. This might help the current situation, but the mistake I see with this that it acknowledges or legitimizes the whole IP patent system. What we or RH (I won’t expect IBM to do this of course) should do is to present a unified front agains software patents, at least in Europe, not begin using them.
There is not a single evidence that software patents (or IP patents on general, like amazon’s one click or consumer review) helped innovation in any way, but there are plenty of evidence to the contrary, both in the software industry, end elsewhere (I refer to the recent study that shows that 10% of scientific research are dropped/stalled because the current system of patents). Patents are bad in any form when it comes to abstract idea period.
Of course, we may argue that is too late now, and we should play by their (meaning the patent lobby) rules – and I can understand this reasoning, but don’t forget about the fact that software patents in the EU are illegal, and we should struggle to keep it that way IMHO.
The site referenced by the article has the detail you are missing. In particular, it makes no statement in favor of software patents, or any patents for that matter. None of the patent grants would have any force in countries that don’t recognize those patents in the first place.
But really, this organization is a good thing given the current legal situation. The big thing here isn’t the patents that FOSS developers can use – it’s the patents that will be used against those who try to sue those developers. Many of the patent grant statements have retaliation clauses. The only reason Red Hat has patents is to use them for defence against patent claims on FOSS developers.
Plus, Linus’s argument will work even better with this organization around. The actual devs won’t have to read the patents, just lawyers. These patents can be used to defend against other patents, which the devs won’t have to read either. And with companies like Novell pledging to invalidate other patents, those don’t have to be read either. For that matter, the patents that do apply that have been granted here don’t have to be read by the average developer either, because companies like Nokia have hired developers to write the applicable code themselves – if anything, those patents can serve as documentation of the idea, part of the original rationalle of patents.
As for the “unified front against software patents”, I agree, they should do that, and not just in Europe, in the US as well. Laws can be changed, you know. But don’t think that these companies are beginning to use patents now – they have already been using them. Some of these companies are built on them, like Ericson. Heck, I wouldn’t be surprised if some of these patents are on prior hardware implementations of functions now performed by software – the patent would still apply, even to a software implementation, as long as the algorithm is similar enough.
There is nothing in the organization’s charter or the patent grants that limits these patents to ones granted on software. These can be hardware patents too. The difference isn’t as big as it used to be.
Yea, it’s sort of a posting of what you’re allowed to do… Definitely demonstrates that the set of solvable problems is countable!
Hey, I’ve got another similar joke collection for you:
http://www.dumblaws.com/
Reminds me of this: http://freepatentsonline.com/crazy.html
Sure patents may help few industries protect their IP rights ie:automotive chemical and manufacuring.
But software is a different story.
Almost anyone that has money can patent xffoo=ffoo+ffoo
Patents have killed most confidence in developing software from the ground up. Research and development would take too long just to start.
What about copyright that is a better one for code. I would say patents are still a sore point for developers and researchers.
IBM and other companies are doing this to help protect the long term health of these things. Microsoft should help pitch in as well for their own platform developers. What about game developers when will that dry up? Most graphic ideas came from game development.
And now I am ranting… so I shall stop.