Linux - NewsThis forum is for original Linux News. If you'd like to write content for LQ, feel free to contact us.
All threads in the forum need to be approved before they will appear.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
At the same time, we are forced to live in the world as it is, and that world currently permits software patents. A relatively small number of very large companies have amassed large numbers of software patents. We believe such massive software patent portfolios are ripe for misuse because of the questionable nature of many software patents generally and because of the high cost of patent litigation.
One defense against such misuse is to develop a corresponding portfolio of software patents for defensive purposes. Many software companies, both open source and proprietary, pursue this strategy. In the interests of our company and in an attempt to protect and promote the open source community, Red Hat has elected to adopt this same stance. We do so reluctantly because of the perceived inconsistency with our stance against software patents; however, prudence dictates this position.
Really ? Can we have a list ... so I can boycott them.
So, what is this ? Can any good come out of it ? I think not.
Well, technically you could say it's not such a bad idea, because if something is already patented, no one else can patent it, so it somehow stops the patent war. Except it doesn't, it only makes it worse.
Why is it not a good thing ?
Well for Red Hat, I think first of all it will be bad PR. I thought they were against software patents, I mean isn't that why they didn't sign any patent agreements in their recent deal with the devil ... I mean M$ ? And now they file their own software patents and call it "defensive". How do I know that's their real goal, how do I know they won't abuse the patents and become like M$ (after M$ dies) ? a patent troll ?
So, basically, I think they have either just contradicted themselves on their software patent policy / ethics, or they don't know where they stand ... or they're planning something.
Second, have you ever played the game Risk ? If you haven't go play it with a friend. If you mass troops on a border ... the enemy will follow suit. Imagine the enemy is M$, imagine the number of troops they have versus yours ... what are your chances ? I dunno, but to me it seems like asking for trouble. Or maybe the gamble will pay off with enough luck. But then the first question still stands, how do I know they won't become a patent troll in spite of them deeming it "defensive" ?
Technically there is this promise on the aforementioned site:
Quote:
Our Promise:
Subject to any qualifications or limitations stated herein, to the extent any party exercises a Patent Right with respect to Open Source/Free Software which reads on any claim of any patent held by Red Hat, Red Hat agrees to refrain from enforcing the infringed patent against such party for such exercise ("Our Promise"). Our Promise does not extend to any software which is not Open Source/Free Software, and any party exercising a Patent Right with respect to non-Open Source/Free Software which reads on any claims of any patent held by Red Hat must obtain a license for the exercise of such rights from Red Hat. Our Promise does not extend to any party who institutes patent litigation against Red Hat with respect to a patent applicable to software (including a cross-claim or counterclaim to a lawsuit). No hardware per se is licensed hereunder.
Each party relying on Our Promise acknowledges that Our Promise is not an assurance that Red Hat's patents are enforceable or that the exercise of rights under Red Hat's patents does not infringe the patent or other intellectual property rights of any other entity. Red Hat disclaims any liability to any party relying on Our Promise for claims brought by any other entity based on infringement of intellectual property rights or otherwise. As a condition to exercising the Patent Rights permitted by Our Promise hereunder, each relying party hereby assumes sole responsibility to secure any other intellectual property rights needed, if any.
It looks kinda convoluted and vague ... any lawyers in the house who can sort this out, free of charge if possible ? It looks like they promise not to enforce their patents unless they have to ... right ? I don't trust them, because it's too vague for me, and it's in lawyer speak, just like the Bible you can interpret it however you please.
Third, this may cause a copycat effect, which will cause other FLOSS or GNU/Linux companies to do the same thing, grabbing whatever patents they can before Red Hat can hog them and bag them for "defensive" purposes. It's kind of like a call to arms, a massing of troops at the border. Everyone's going to react by either attacking or massing troops in preparation, etc.
Any good things that can come out of this ? Does it look like this will ameliorate or inflame the patent war ?
I think you're misreading Red Hat's intentions, H. They didn't sign a patent deal with "the devil" because they want no parts of it and because they know M$ is full of B$ in that department. But for safety's sake, they've filed for 'defensive patents' to protect themselves from litigation just in case "the devil" ever decides to go to court.
Maybe, but to me it doesn't add up. If they are sure M$ doesn't have anything worthwhile (which is quite a reasonable assumption, as to date they have not identified a single line of code as potentially infringing, and even if they do, I doubt very much any court will uphold it), and yet they decide supposedly "for safety's sake" to file "defensive" patents. Sorry, I don't buy it, they're up to something, this is not the real reason they are doing it.
Maybe it's one of those wait and see situations. If it helps them avoid lawsuits it works for them. If they can actively deter others succesfully it works for them. If nothing litigious at all happens then it works for them. Only in time RH will be able to prove if it works for all of us. Personally I'm not too worried because an investment of 4.5K authored 2.6 kernel patches alone (if I tally the ChangeLogs correctly) might be slightly less than SuSE's commitment but more than Debian and way more than a certain other distribution. Given their market value, their commitment to and investment in Linux and OSS in general I don't think anyone can judge right now if what they did is a good or a bad move.
Maybe it's one of those wait and see situations. If it helps them avoid lawsuits it works for them. If they can actively deter others succesfully it works for them. If nothing litigious at all happens then it works for them. Only in time RH will be able to prove if it works for all of us.
Excellent perspective.
For the record, check out this case between M$ and TomTom.
Quote:
The suit comes on the heels of one Microsoft filed against TomTom in late February, accusing it of infringing on eight patents, including some that describe technology found in a version of the Linux OS that TomTom uses.
Keep in mind, M$ filed their suit against TomTom just days after signing the interoperability agreement with Red Hat. When you have someone with M$'s reputation on the playground, nobody should consider themselves invulnerable, but rather, be prepared for the unexpected.
This shows you how demented software patents are. If everyone started suing it would all go to hell because everyone is infringing someone else's patent.
If everyone started suing it would all go to hell because everyone is infringing someone else's patent.
Actually, it almost already has, and for that very reason. And sadly enough, far too many wrongful patents have already been upheld in court. So, just like the cold war, everyone must build their arsenals and hope nobody pushes the button, unless everyone, including M$, can be convinced to disarm.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
