Unfortunate reality
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| r_a_trip Mar 29, 2011 5:02 AM EDT |
It's unfortunate that Red Hat is forced to play the patent game, but I understand it. If they don't have their own stash of WMD's, they'd be sued out of existence by companies who do have them and are unable to compete on merit. It is a bit of a Sword of Damocles though. As long as Red Hat can make a good living on FOSS and they keep being able to attract FOSS business savvy management, all is fine. The day they are faltering on the market or they ($Deity forbid) attract the next Darl McBride, run for the hills and hide. 137+ missiles are launched for destruction and mayhem. |
| Sander_Marechal Mar 29, 2011 9:53 AM EDT |
Not just unfortunate, but really crazy if you think about it. The very notion of a "defensive patent portfolio" is a contradition in terms. An oxymoron. Think about what it really means to get a patent for defensive purposes. A patent can only defend you from patent threats if the people suing you are violating your defensive patent. So, applying for a defensive patent means by definition that you are patenting something that other people already invented and are using. So whatever you're patenting for a defensive patent is by definition non patentable because it's too obvious, not innovative, etcetera. So, companies who are only patenting stuff for defensive purposes are actually the worst. They are patenting all kinds of obvious, non-inventive crap because they need to be sure that whoever is going to sue them will violate those defensive patents. |
| JaseP Mar 29, 2011 10:26 AM EDT |
You don't necessarily have to worry about Red Hat's solvency or financial position. Depending on the patents & the software they've open sourced, and the licenses involved (GPL 2.0 vs GPL 3, etc.), it maybe impossible for a successor to get the genie back in the bottle. Their portfolio & their stance on it is all the more reason to back Red Hat as an open source advocate, I'd say. |
| gus3 Mar 29, 2011 10:28 AM EDT |
For perspective: Sun Microsystems vs. Other Big Players |
| JaseP Mar 29, 2011 10:49 AM EDT |
Nice link. I always figured as much about M$. I bet this is why MIDs weren't available in the US, except by import, for as long as they were... |
| gus3 Mar 29, 2011 11:10 AM EDT |
Also, popping up on today's Slashdot: Start-ups hindered by software patents (use NoScript/AdBlock{,Plus} when viewing) |
| r_a_trip Mar 29, 2011 12:40 PM EDT |
Sander, you might be right, but not having patents at all in the US makes a software company a sitting duck. Sometimes the mere knowledge that a patent portfolio is in place, is enough to deter others from opportunistic lawsuits. Regardless of the quality of the patents in those patent portfolios. |
| JaseP Mar 29, 2011 12:55 PM EDT |
Quoting: Sander, you might be right, but not having patents at all in the US makes a software company a sitting duck. I disagree. The same level of protection could be afforded by expanding copyright or trademark to cover substantial copying of "look and feel" of software. What the "average Joe" thinks of when they think of software copying another piece of software, is exactly that,... "look and feel." The patent system is horrible as far as resolving disputes. And, things worked just fine when software IP protection was copyrights. |
| Sander_Marechal Mar 30, 2011 7:31 AM EDT |
@JaseP: You can't copyright or trademark "look-n-feel" though and I am glad for it. In such a reality, MS could quickly kill LibreOffice because it has the "look-n-feel" of MS-Office (the older versions). Also, Look-n-feel is a judgement call, not something that can be objectively assessed (like copyright infringement) |
| JaseP Mar 30, 2011 8:51 AM EDT |
Quoting: Also, Look-n-feel is a judgment call, not something that can be objectively assessed (like copyright infringement) I apologize for my long winded reply, in advance... Like patents granted right now are being granted with objectivity?!?! Anyway, remember that I said "substantial copying of 'look and feel'," & I am talking about changes to existing law. Trivial look & feel (menu bars like in every graphical interface, basic UI elements & What-you-see-is-what-you-get document editing) would not count as being substantial copying. And, if you don't think that look & feel are being patented now (& those patents being granted), I think you are mistaken. Trademark would be the best route. Trademark is used for product & brand identification. This is what most of these companies really want to protect. Changes to the law would have to define standards by which copying is said to occur. They can define one element to infringement as that the program, application or device is likely to cause substantial brand confusion. Take, for example, some of the so-called iPad clones coming out of the Chinese market. For some of these devices, you cannot distinguish them from an iPad, except by close inspection. And, this is despite the fact that Android (which most of them run) usually requires 3 physical buttons to the iPad's one. If you extend this concept to software, that the protected IP is in no small part brand identification, you would reduce the bar to entry for small, innovative companies & projects, & put the question of infringement into terms laymen could understand. A menu is not brand identification, nor is a status bar, dialog box, etc. But a certain swipe gesture, coupled with a smooth scroll of the entire screen, a certain translucency, a sound and a particular icon theme, MIGHT be... Fighting THAT out can be done quickly & relatively on the cheap. You don't need a ton of discovery for that, & like a certain Supreme Court Justice said about porn, "I know it when I see it." |
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!