Open Invention Network Expands Patent Protection 22
Thinkcloud writes "More than 700 new software packages including popular packages such as KVM, Git, OpenJDK, and WebKit will now receive royalty-free shelter under the Open Invention Network. This could make it more friction-free for organizations and developers to adopt and modify open source technology."
OIN's press release has a bit more detail. They've greatly expanded their definition of the "Linux system" to cover a lot more core software with their defensive patent pool.
This is great, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Have they? I know Ballmer has blustered about vague claims, but to my knowledge, Microsoft has never actually launched a direct patent attack against the Linux kernel.
Re: (Score:2)
Because there's no money there... but they will attack anything that uses the kernel: Android, Nook, TomTom
Re: (Score:3)
Recall that SCO launched a direct attack, and MS backed them. SCO demanded a $699 license fee from every Linux user, alleging that there was patented technology in the Linux kernel. It was highly improper of SCO to hit up users, but MS did not discourage SCO from trying that, far from it. If there were any merits to their claims, SCO should have pursued developers and perhaps distributors, not end users. To use a car analogy, what SCO tried was like demanding payment from everyone who ever drove a Ford
Re: (Score:2)
In a just world, SCO would be forced to refund all of those $699 licenses with interest before paying any other bill including legal fees and executive salary. After all, they licensed something they didn't even own.
Of course, in a just world, the rotting zombie corpse of SCO wouldn't still be lumbering around rattling legal sabres.
Re:This is great, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there anyone who doesn't know The System Is A Fraud? And yet, it seems foolish to ignore it. There's nothing hypocritical about maintaining a defensive patent portfolio and working to abolish software patents simultaneously. Now, if you were to launch a preemptive attack from that portfolio, that would be hypocritical...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now, if you were to launch a preemptive attack from that portfolio, that would be hypocritical...
I disagree. Navigating and using an existing system is not equivalent to acknowledging that system as a good one.
I didn't say it would be a bad idea, only that it would be hypocritical. It might be immoral, but it's probably less immoral than the next guy.
Re:This is great, but... (Score:4, Funny)
Don't worry, the politicians will fix it just as soon as they take care of more important issues like obscure contraception rules, symbolic budget showdowns, school prayer, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
The system is broken because it's legal system allows itself to be used as a bludgeon to attack the innocent.
Your analogy would be if we needed a police force to protect us from being shaken down by the police. And that would, indeed, be a broken system.
Re: (Score:2)
"system is totally broken"
This phrase has lost all meaning on me. Humans break all things, including systems. They misuse them, abuse them. Every minor exception neglected by creators of the system, becomes a major use, because humans use the systems this way.
Every system has its own purpose different (or narrowing down) from main human instinct - grab stuff lying around.
there should be a GNU patent (Score:3)
GNU patent: every patent that is based on that patent (built on top of that patent, would be impossible without that patent) should be also a GNU patent.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that the system is rigged to make this impossible: patent fees are damn expensive, to make sure everyone defects in what is essentially prisoner's dilemma.