OSDev.org

unfortunately, patent-hunting lawyer (... must ... resist .... ) are unlikely to be "nice" at anybody. And if mp3 encoding patent may sound somehow 'reasonable' to my ears there is likely to be too much abuse like patent over progress bars, "back" button and things alike. The time delay (dozens of years) is also completely inadapted to the reality of software world.

Pype.Clicker wrote: unfortunately, patent-hunting lawyer (... must ... resist .... ) are unlikely to be "nice" at anybody. And if mp3 encoding patent may sound somehow 'reasonable' to my ears there is likely to be too much abuse like patent over progress bars, "back" button and things alike. The time delay (dozens of years) is also completely inadapted to the reality of software world.

I'd really like to see a reasonability clause in it, or it all scrapped. Reasonability clause:

You can ask any amount of money for your patent, but you cannot ask anybody more than 5% of the total income of their product, and the amount coming in may not exceed the amount of money needed to be spent for researching the patent in the first place, according to a time scale set by experts

the last part mainly because of companies that probably claim incredulous numbers for the inventions. Somehow, it's a way to make people always check the patent DB for whatever they invented, because their OWN invention (that cost them money to invent!) might be patented by someone else! That's one of the situations I'd like to prevent.

Of course, the free software people would like the first section of this clause probably, they /HAVE/ no income, so 5% of nothing equates nothing. Companies like RedHat etc would then not have a competitive advantage over other companies, so the patent system as it is now in the US would still hold (in corporate sense). Also, startups get a fair chance in the market, they don't have to cough up $20 million only to get the patents to produce /one/ product.

As a somewhat related sidenote, my LZW compressor/decompressor is finished (at least, working for just about all cases, including compressing its own source code) and I'm going to both GPL & BSD-old-style & own license-it so it'll appear for download on www.atlantisos.com/gpl.html. A hint: this algorithm is patented in the US, even though I got not a byte of help from them. Had to implement it all by myself again, so in a way I'd feel screwed by the patent, because I never used anything that's in their patent. OTOH I don't care about any patents, don't do now and never will either.

Pete wrote: i think that it would be fine if there was a clause which meant that free/hobby software could use the patents freely and that you only had to pay the author or whatever if you were going to make your software (using the patent) commercial

NOK.

There's a whole world between selling an enterprise-level product at a hefty premium and giving hobbyist software away for free.

Myself, for example, I would like to see my (currently strictly hobbyist) OS one day being available in your local store in a shrinkwrapped package including printed manual, with a high-availability update and community server, advertising in magazines and professional user and developer support.

That will cost money, which has to come from somewhere.

And since I do not believe in asking for donations, or accepting company sponsors (and getting dependent on them), I intend to sell the product at a price as crafters have done for millenia.

And because I want the product to pay for itself, I also have to make it pay for patent licenses just because I didn't ride the "free" wave? Don't think so.

Such a clause in patent law would only serve to further polarize the camps. What about Freeware? What about Shareware? And is RedHat allowed to sell their Enterprise Linux without paying for Licenses just because Fedora is "free"?

It's not that easy.

But we're drifting away from the original topic. No matter if you are a company or a coder releasing your stuff under GPL, I think it's wrong to patent algorithms or data structures or UI details and require all other software engineers to look up the millions of patents to see if they apply to their work and what the licensing terms are.

That way, the only people capable of developing software without risking their very existence are corporations with a full-blown legal department...

commercial or free is not the thing this ball game is about. It is about patents on software:

Imagine you use the famous bubble sort algorithm (it is simple and easy to understand and even for linked lists and other data structures too) in your favourite program. (no I wouldna sort anything too long in the kernel). Imagine you put this program on your favourite webserver for others to use.

-and imagine, some company has registered a patent on the bubble sort algorithm. They find your program. Their patents lawyer holds a sue note straight under your nose and wants a lot of money from your - for you are said to abuse their patent. *gnarfl*

whatcha gonna do? Resist? Obey? Curse him and go underground?

This patents stuff is crap. patents on color bars are something only a greedy moron could give birth in his money poisoned brain.

I am not against commercial software. I gain my living by developing/writing software. So, that's no problem for me. Patents are a problem. We don't have a need for such a kind of currency.

Another note - according to the paper pushed by the EU Council of Ministers, any "functional description" of e.g. a protocol or data structure would qualify as patent infringement.

And as you can't ever be sure what's covered by a patent and what not, that would be the end of my postings to the OS FAQ...

Thats it. Because most things you do in kernel land and in user land involve implementing Protocols and Algorithms.

We could be sued for the smallest Binary Tree implementation in our kernels by the biggies panicking in stampede coz they fear loss of money.

doesn't it suffice that we already have hefty copyright infringement laws?

In germany doesn't it suffice to have lawyers at hands which send "Abmahnungen" - kinda pre-sue note involving a hefty fee and some well calculated intimidations - to each and every one daring to use *words* in websites which some well paying enterprise claims to be grown on their own crap?

Nay, not funny this is indeed...

beyond infinity wrote: In germany doesn't it suffice to have lawyers at hands which send "Abmahnungen" - kinda pre-sue note involving a hefty fee and some well calculated intimidations - to each and every one daring to use *words* in websites which some well paying enterprise claims to be grown on their own crap?

Correct. The fees are claimed to cover the "expenses" of the lawyer, who usually did little more than doing a Google query and writing up the sue note. AFAIK, US law has something similar in their "Cease and Desist" notes.

It would probably be quite similar with this new patent law: "Cease and Desist". Can be pretty anoying if the thing you are asked to cease & desist is e.g. the code for sharing drives over the network, or for accessing the next generation of gfx cards...

And, while we're on the subject of lawsuits: In most countries, unless you took active measures to limit your liability (e.g. by registering your project as a company), you are personally liable for patent infringements in your project's code. Having to pay back a 500000 ? patent infringement fine isn't fun...

So the only workaround this **** would be a fully peer2peer network where we could discuss anonymously and exchange software we developed without allowing Men In Black to discover our true identities, that's it ?

Btw, as a patent makes the invention public (i mean you're requested to *explain* what you're patenting), how can they actually forbid one to discuss over that patented thing ?

2121 Protesting sites.

Pete

Pype.Clicker wrote: So the only workaround this **** would be a fully peer2peer network where we could discuss anonymously and exchange software we developed without allowing Men In Black to discover our true identities, that's it ?

Nope, the Big Players don't sit silent while something like that evolves:
http://news.com.com/2100-1025-1022462.html

Freenet looks like an alternative, but do we really want freedom to be pushed into the geek / criminal corner, just waiting to be outlawed and disabled?

Btw, as a patent makes the invention public (i mean you're requested to *explain* what you're patenting), how can they actually forbid one to discuss over that patented thing ?

Well, sure you can discuss it. But you must not implement or even functionally describe it without licensing it first...

I tend to have what the psychologists would call "depressions". I usually refer to that state of mind as "realizing reality"... it's a shame that, in nations that call themselves "democratic", we can't do more than closing down our websites and marching in Brussels. >:(

i must admit that the news had a severe impact on the amount of code i wrote yesterday "what's the use of going on coding if i can't even have ideas !?" ... i understand what you mean by "depression".

@solar: so you are 'knurd'. Sad this is. You definitely *should* do yourself a treat and have some biscuit or chocolate for it raises the mood a bit.

I tend to the following: where no plaint there no judge.

But the central thing of how the world of mankind is spinning is this: The very few biggies do what ever they wanna do because all the other *let* them do. Because they permit/tolerate it without so much as a wink. If we all stood up together and ban them and their products, bet is that the biggies would shrink very quick.

Well, but that's another story, and mankind standing up *together* is a [tail *grmpf*] tale the fairies tell beneathe the tallest mountains summits.

if only i heard of this one week earlier, i could've scheduled my work in another way and go marchin' on Brussels too ...

>:( :'(

The disadvantage is that I live too far from Brussel.
And I have school... so ::)
>:( :'(

So, because now it is 2004-04-15, I would like to hear from people that were in Brussel yesterday about how it went.