IP does not HAVE to be code
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| cjcox Feb 26, 2007 7:57 AM EDT |
I'm not really sure where the free software community got off track... but IP infringement does NOT have to be with code. It can be as simple as a concept or merely how things are presented. IANAL, but a quick look at Microsoft patents (thank you google) show that pretty much every operating system violates existing Microsoft patents. There's no need for Microsoft to put up code.... I don't think they plan on trying to show that Linux contains Microsoft code somehow. There's many, many easier IP issues they can pick on. Just my two cents. |
| Aladdin_Sane Feb 26, 2007 8:28 AM EDT |
>There's no need for Microsoft to put up code... I'm not sure I'm following your thought on this. Many of us have followed SCO v IBM closely, and the big collapse of SCO's case in Dec 2005 was when they couldn't show The Judge code. >It can be as simple as a concept While there are more sophisticated arguments against this, if concepts are patentable, then I can patent "love," justice" or any abstract, and charge you a fee. Scary argument you made. Do you really want that? >how things are presented While I'm not sure about patents for presentation actually having been litigated, it seems clear presentation cannot be copyrighted: The results of both Apple v MS and Lotus v Borland were pretty clear on that, the "look & feel" issue. >pretty much every operating system violates existing Microsoft patents We knew this. Did you have a point to add? That leaves Trademarks and trade secrets as IP goes. While a trademark probably does not have computer code associated with it (except those cool DeCSS code t-shirts maybe), Linspire/Lindows won the trademark case against them by MS in a really telling way. So did you have a point about Microsoft's trade secrets? Remember that any patent is no longer secret, you have to state publicly what you invented to get a patent on it. What we want to know is, with specificity, which MS property they think has been violated or infringed. Without that, what they're claiming in the media is the worst kind of FUD. |
| dinotrac Feb 26, 2007 8:36 AM EDT |
>While there are more sophisticated arguments against this, if concepts are patentable, In theory, at least, concepts are not patentable -- a claim must reduce theory to practice. However, IP embraces more than patents, and copyright law protects concepts up to a point. For example, it is not sufficient to change names and places to avoid copyright infringement on novel, etc. With regard to code, it would apply to a non-literal copying, ie, writing code "heavily influenced" by the source. It's why they have Chinese walls. |
| tuxchick Feb 26, 2007 8:42 AM EDT |
silly me, I thought all this "eye pee" craziness was just an implementation of the old saying "in a town with only one lawyer, the lawyer starves. Two prosper, and three build an industry" |
| hkwint Feb 26, 2007 9:39 AM EDT |
(EU) "Software as such isn't patentable, but in a computer implemented innovations are". Yeah, crap! Darn those EU compromises! Quoting:but IP infringement does NOT have to be with code Please read their site. It states: Quoting:If Linux developers are made aware of the code and pantented ideashttp://showusthecode.com/ Please read 'computer implemented inventions' instead of 'ideas' (stupid writer over there), since ideas are not patentable, even in the US, as far as I know. BTW: Sadly for him, $teve Ballmer doe$ have plenty of ($trange) idea$, but mo$t of them are not even computer related. |
| jimf Feb 26, 2007 10:54 AM EDT |
> since ideas are not patentable, even in the US, as far as I know. Tell that to MS. The number of idea patents we've seen listed from them seems infinite. What the pattent office is thinking by even concidering these is behond me. Lets hope the courts set these guys straight. |
| TPuffin Feb 26, 2007 11:21 AM EDT |
Better do it quick, before MS patents the judicial process and demands royalties on every decision. Sigh. |
| jdixon Feb 26, 2007 11:23 AM EDT |
> Better do it quick, before MS patents the judicial process and demands royalties on every decision. They don't need to. They bought it lock, stock, and barrel in 2000. :( |
| Aladdin_Sane Feb 26, 2007 11:45 AM EDT |
Quoted from http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary Main Entry: 1code Pronunciation: 'kOd Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin caudex, codex trunk of a tree, document formed originally from wooden tablets 1 : a systematic statement of a body of law; especially : one given statutory force 2 : a system of principles or rules 3 a : a system of signals or symbols for communication b : a system of symbols (as letters or numbers) used to represent assigned and often secret meanings 4 : GENETIC CODE 5 : a set of instructions for a computer What I'm thinking, in the broadest sense of the term possible, is that all "IP" is in fact code. This is a philosophical argument, and not necessarily a legal one. In this sense, a song and a computer program are not really different, the song may be expressed as sheet music (a symbolic code) or represented sonicly. A computer program may be expressed as a written symbolic language (C, JAVA) or represented digitally. Maybe IP does HAVE to be code, in some sense? |
| hkwint Feb 26, 2007 12:41 PM EDT |
You didn't watch in the sun while your mother told you shouldn't, I hope, Aladdin? (If you don't get that, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0138704/) |
| Sander_Marechal Feb 26, 2007 2:58 PM EDT |
Quoting:There's no need for Microsoft to put up code Yes there is. MS has to point to specific *linux* code and tell us exactly what MS patent it infringes (and why). This is about Linux code, not MS code. I suggest you search groklaw.net for a rundown of SCO-IBM, especially the "methods & concepts" part. In order for Linux to violate an MS patent, the patented material has to exist in code somewhere in Linux. If it's not implemented in code then there is no violation. Period. |
| dcparris Feb 26, 2007 3:06 PM EDT |
Yeah, Microsoft can threaten all they want. Until they show us where the patent infringement lies, they really should just shut up. :-) |
| Aladdin_Sane Feb 26, 2007 5:56 PM EDT |
>Yes there is. MS has to point to specific *linux* code and tell us exactly what MS patent it infringes (and why). This is about Linux code, not MS code. Agreed. >I suggest you search groklaw.net for a rundown of SCO-IBM Agreed. >especially the "methods & concepts" part. In order for Linux to violate an MS patent, the patented material has to exist in code somewhere in Linux. Agreed as to form and principle. But I have to grant this fact from above as well, >However, IP embraces more than patents, and copyright law protects concepts up to a point... We've gotten our Copyrights and Patents confused (patent pending) in this thread it seems. There's little if anything about patents in SCO v World+dog (always wanted to say that). Still, whatever MS is complaining about, I'm sure demanding specificity is the right strategy. Groklaw fall down. :-( "Sorry, there are hardware problems with the database server, the RAID card is fried. Prognosis is that it will take till tomorrow EST to fix the machine. Groklaw will be down until then." |
| jimf Feb 26, 2007 6:46 PM EDT |
> Until they show us where the patent infringement lies, they really should just shut up. :-) We'll all concede the code for SOS to them. Whenever they're ready.... |
| DarrenR114 Feb 27, 2007 6:04 AM EDT |
>Groklaw fall down. :-( >"Sorry, there are hardware problems with the database server, the RAID card is fried. Prognosis is that it will take till tomorrow EST to fix the machine. Groklaw will be down until then." Thankfully, the main ibiblio.org site is not impacted. And tldp.org is still up and running. I wonder what other ibiblio.org hosted sites were impacted. |
| Sander_Marechal Feb 27, 2007 2:46 PM EDT |
I noticed LXer was down for me as well most of the day for me. Is someone having a go at major Linux sites here? Groklaw and LXer down at the same time really got to my nerves (as in withdrawal symptoms). |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!