[News] Lawyers Try to Bite FOSS, Novell/Microsoft Style - Linux

This is a discussion on [News] Lawyers Try to Bite FOSS, Novell/Microsoft Style - Linux ; A company turns the Microsoft-Novell case into an open source business model ,----[ Quote ] | Everybody seems to agree that software patents are bad: because of patent | trolls, because the patent system is broken and overwhelmed or because ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: [News] Lawyers Try to Bite FOSS, Novell/Microsoft Style

  1. [News] Lawyers Try to Bite FOSS, Novell/Microsoft Style

    A company turns the Microsoft-Novell case into an open source business model

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Everybody seems to agree that software patents are bad: because of patent
    | trolls, because the patent system is broken and overwhelmed or because they
    | threaten FOSS. In short, people don’t want to pay for Linux.
    |
    | Yet even pro-open-source companies are making this argument that they have to
    | build a patent portfolio so that to be able to defend themselves, just in
    | case. Hey, even open source communities have adopted this “I’m forced too”
    | stance.
    |
    | Therefore it was only a matter of time before an open source company decides
    | patents could be used to solidify open source dual-licensing schemes. Imagine
    | the deal between Microsoft and Novell erected into a widespread open source
    | dual-licensing scheme. Scary.
    `----

    http://blog.milkingthegnu.org/2008/0...-based-op.html


    Related:

    Interview with Carlos Piana

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | The lawyer for Samba and the Free Software Foundation Europe explains the
    | behind-the-scenes work behind last month's antitrust decision against
    | Microsoft. *
    |
    | [...]
    |
    | A quite spectacular defence was that about security. Basically it said that,
    | unlike the Internet protocols, those keeping together a Microsoft work group
    | network were so conceived that the all the servers acted as if they were a
    | single distributed entity. In other words they were "tightly coupled",
    | closely knitted together so that any intrusion from the outside, a drop-in
    | replacement pretending to be a Microsoft Windows server could cause
    | irreparable harm and all sort of nefarious problems. Besides, disclosing the
    | specifications of their protocols would have required a hardening of the
    | protocols, in order to make them resistant to malware attack or simply of
    | badly designed third-party software which could have compromised the whole
    | infrastructure. * * * * *
    `----

    http://www.linuxworld.com/news/2008/030808-piana.html

  2. Re: [News] Lawyers Try to Bite FOSS, Novell/Microsoft Style

    Roy Schestowitz espoused:
    > A company turns the Microsoft-Novell case into an open source business model
    >
    > ,----[ Quote ]
    >| Everybody seems to agree that software patents are bad: because of patent
    >| trolls, because the patent system is broken and overwhelmed or because they
    >| threaten FOSS. In short, people don?t want to pay for Linux.
    >|
    >| Yet even pro-open-source companies are making this argument that they have to
    >| build a patent portfolio so that to be able to defend themselves, just in
    >| case. Hey, even open source communities have adopted this ?I?m forced too?
    >| stance.
    >|
    >| Therefore it was only a matter of time before an open source company decides
    >| patents could be used to solidify open source dual-licensing schemes. Imagine
    >| the deal between Microsoft and Novell erected into a widespread open source
    >| dual-licensing scheme. Scary.
    > `----
    >
    > http://blog.milkingthegnu.org/2008/0...-based-op.html
    >


    Fortunately, software patents are not valid outside of Nafta and
    Australia.

    --
    | mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    | Open platforms prevent vendor lock-in. Own your Own services! |


  3. Re: [News] Lawyers Try to Bite FOSS, Novell/Microsoft Style

    ____/ Mark Kent on Wednesday 23 April 2008 11:37 : \____

    > Roy Schestowitz espoused:
    >> A company turns the Microsoft-Novell case into an open source business model
    >>
    >> ,----[ Quote ]
    >>| Everybody seems to agree that software patents are bad: because of patent
    >>| trolls, because the patent system is broken and overwhelmed or because
    >>| they threaten FOSS. In short, people don?t want to pay for Linux.
    >>|
    >>| Yet even pro-open-source companies are making this argument that they have
    >>| to build a patent portfolio so that to be able to defend themselves, just
    >>| in case. Hey, even open source communities have adopted this ?I?m forced
    >>| too? stance.
    >>|
    >>| Therefore it was only a matter of time before an open source company
    >>| decides patents could be used to solidify open source dual-licensing
    >>| schemes. Imagine the deal between Microsoft and Novell erected into a
    >>| widespread open source dual-licensing scheme. Scary.
    >> `----
    >>
    >> http://blog.milkingthegnu.org/2008/0...-based-op.html
    >>

    >
    > Fortunately, software patents are not valid outside of Nafta and
    > Australia.


    Well, Novell gets people even in China to pay for that, unknowingly. This
    Microsoft subsidiary needs to be stopped.

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | You can never get nine women to deliver a baby in a
    month
    http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    12:05:01 up 8 days, 10:17, 3 users, load average: 1.13, 0.93, 1.06
    http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project

  4. Re: [News] Lawyers Try to Bite FOSS, Novell/Microsoft Style

    Roy Schestowitz wrote:

    > This Microsoft subsidiary needs to be stopped.


    And a know-nothing, do-nothing, news-spamming liar like you is just the bozo
    to get it done.




  5. Re: [News] Lawyers Try to Bite FOSS, Novell/Microsoft Style

    DFS wrote:
    > Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >
    >> This Microsoft subsidiary needs to be stopped.

    >
    > And a know-nothing, do-nothing, news-spamming liar like you is just
    > the bozo to get it done.


    And again I want to remind you, it's nothing personal. Those are just the
    facts.



  6. Re: [News] Lawyers Try to Bite FOSS, Novell/Microsoft Style

    Mark Kent wrote:
    > Roy Schestowitz espoused:
    >> A company turns the Microsoft-Novell case into an open source business model
    >>
    >> ,----[ Quote ]
    >> | Everybody seems to agree that software patents are bad: because of patent
    >> | trolls, because the patent system is broken and overwhelmed or because they
    >> | threaten FOSS. In short, people don?t want to pay for Linux.
    >> |
    >> | Yet even pro-open-source companies are making this argument that they have to
    >> | build a patent portfolio so that to be able to defend themselves, just in
    >> | case. Hey, even open source communities have adopted this ?I?m forced too?
    >> | stance.
    >> |
    >> | Therefore it was only a matter of time before an open source company decides
    >> | patents could be used to solidify open source dual-licensing schemes. Imagine
    >> | the deal between Microsoft and Novell erected into a widespread open source
    >> | dual-licensing scheme. Scary.


    As I'm certain you can determine by reading my posts in this
    news group, I have no technical training in computers. I also
    have no education beyond a high school diploma. So this may
    be a stupid question. It may also seem off-topic for this
    news group, but since I thought of the question solely based
    on posts in this news group, I thought that I would return a
    favor that has been done for me in this news group by posting
    it here:

    If open-source and pro-open-source companies apply for and
    receive software patents for their software (ostensibly to
    defend themselves in 'patent wars' that are initiated by
    closed-source, proprietary software companies), doesn't that
    introduce the danger that the open-source and pro-open-source
    companies can be bought by closed-source companies (and then
    their open-source patents belong to the closed-source
    companies that bought them)?

    Now comes another question:

    If the answer to the preceding question is 'Yes',
    what damage will be done to the 'open source' movement if
    a closed-source company (such as Microsoft) buys out
    a company that holds patents on open-source software?

    Thanks in advance for all your answers and comments.

    Kelton

  7. Re: [News] Lawyers Try to Bite FOSS, Novell/Microsoft Style

    In article ,
    Mark Kent wrote:
    >
    > Fortunately, software patents are not valid outside of Nafta and
    > Australia.


    Note: Mark is making this up.


    --
    --Tim Smith

  8. Re: [News] Lawyers Try to Bite FOSS, Novell/Microsoft Style

    Kelton espoused:
    > Mark Kent wrote:
    >> Roy Schestowitz espoused:
    >>> A company turns the Microsoft-Novell case into an open source business model
    >>>
    >>> ,----[ Quote ]
    >>> | Everybody seems to agree that software patents are bad: because of patent
    >>> | trolls, because the patent system is broken and overwhelmed or because they
    >>> | threaten FOSS. In short, people don?t want to pay for Linux.
    >>> |
    >>> | Yet even pro-open-source companies are making this argument that they have to
    >>> | build a patent portfolio so that to be able to defend themselves, just in
    >>> | case. Hey, even open source communities have adopted this ?I?m forced too?
    >>> | stance.
    >>> |
    >>> | Therefore it was only a matter of time before an open source company decides
    >>> | patents could be used to solidify open source dual-licensing schemes. Imagine
    >>> | the deal between Microsoft and Novell erected into a widespread open source
    >>> | dual-licensing scheme. Scary.

    >
    > As I'm certain you can determine by reading my posts in this
    > news group, I have no technical training in computers. I also
    > have no education beyond a high school diploma. So this may
    > be a stupid question. It may also seem off-topic for this
    > news group, but since I thought of the question solely based
    > on posts in this news group, I thought that I would return a
    > favor that has been done for me in this news group by posting
    > it here:
    >
    > If open-source and pro-open-source companies apply for and
    > receive software patents for their software (ostensibly to
    > defend themselves in 'patent wars' that are initiated by
    > closed-source, proprietary software companies), doesn't that
    > introduce the danger that the open-source and pro-open-source
    > companies can be bought by closed-source companies (and then
    > their open-source patents belong to the closed-source
    > companies that bought them)?


    In so far as software patents are valid, then I'd say that your
    answer would be a "yes". The reason why the patent commons project
    was kicked-off some time ago (I think IBM lead it?) was to ensure that
    patents would be held as "royalty-free". I'm not a patent attorney, so
    I do not know if it could be possible to change the status of a patent
    after making it RF.

    A secondary issue is that software patents are not valid outside of
    Nafta and Australia anyway, and even /within/ Nafta, it's questionable
    as to how valid they really are, as they are being dressed as "business
    methods" in order to squeeze them through the USPTO.

    >
    > Now comes another question:
    >
    > If the answer to the preceding question is 'Yes',
    > what damage will be done to the 'open source' movement if
    > a closed-source company (such as Microsoft) buys out
    > a company that holds patents on open-source software?


    If the patents have not been introduced to a commons of some kind, by
    making them RF in perpetuity, then it's possible that some damage could
    be done, although it's also possible that such damage could be limited
    to the Nafta countries and Australia.

    One interesting possibility is that software development could migrate
    to geographies where software patents are not valid, such as the EU,
    China, India, New Zealand, RSA, South and non-nafta Central America,
    Russian Federation, Indonesia & Asia.

    >
    > Thanks in advance for all your answers and comments.
    >
    > Kelton



    --
    | mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    | Open platforms prevent vendor lock-in. Own your Own services! |


+ Reply to Thread