EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

12.08.08

Memo to IBM: Enough with Software Patents, Please

Posted in Europe, Free/Libre Software, IBM, Microsoft, OIN, Patents, Red Hat, Ubuntu at 2:52 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

In summary, to IBM, please join the fight against intellectual monopolies

IBM has begun marketing its GNU/Linux solutions (running proprietary Lotus) as “Microsoft-free”, but not as “Free” because they are not. They try to ‘outMicrosoft’ Microsoft the Microsoft way.

IBM also builds its Maginot Line inside OIN, which is a software patents pool. It actively participates in this patents vs. patents cold war instead of just eliminating the weapon called software patents for the sake of everyone else (not just the large companies in possession of extensive portfolios). As we showed recently, even the man who drove IBM into Linux is still defending software patents.

WON’T J|OIN

IBM just won’t join the cause against software patents. Fortune, the same magazine that ushered Microsoft's patent attack on GNU/Linux with its seminal report, sports a new post that seems as though it’s almost ghostwritten by IBM et al.

Roger Parloff, who provoked opposers of SCO, has just published a very unhelpful thing. This informal article of his mostly echoes OIN’s chief Keith Bergelt [1, 2, 3], the successor of IBMer Jerry Rosenthal (first OIN leader).

The idea is to create a defensive patent shield or no-fly zone around Linux,” says Keith Bergelt, the chief executive officer of Open Invention Network, the consortium launching the site. The core members of that group, formed in 2005, are IBM, NEC, Novell (NOVL), Philips, Red Hat (RHT) and Sony.

[...]

Although some factions of the free- and open-source community are ideologically opposed to the whole notion of software patents — most notably and passionately Richard Stallman, the founder of the Free Software Foundation (which is a client of Linux-Defenders co-sponsor Software Freedom Law Center, which, in turn, supports the End Software Patents organization) — neither Bergelt nor OIN fall into that camp.

“We’re not anti-patent by any stretch of the imagination,” says Bergelt. “More patents is fine with me, as long as they’re high quality. Quality is the drum we beat.

The comment from Benjamin Henrion hits the nail on the head. It says:

It won’t work against patent trolls. Competitors of the Linux-based OSes can put some patents in a troll company, and this kind of patent pooling won’t work, because you cannot countersue.

And what Mr Bergelt is dangerous, since a patent troll with a high quality software patent is much more complicated to invalidate:

“More patents is fine with me, as long as they’re high quality.”

Software cannot be protected by patents, as you always need someone’s else patent to sell or distribute your product. As a software producer, you are always subject to blackmail.

If IBM wants to help more effectively (OIN is not so helpful), then it should empower people’s battle against software patents in the US and Europe, as opposed to giving credence to such patents. We wrote about this before. As this new article suggests, elimination of software patents is a high priority.

[T]he community has to help set a tone of ‘openness’ when working with companies and governments, and encourage these to adopt the same approach. In addition, the community must push for a stable legal system for software – and this includes standing firm against the idea of software patents.

Here is some text which was extracted from the comprehensive new report about Free software [PDF]:

The main threat to FLOSS currently in the area of legislation is software patentability. Software patents make innovation more rigid, reinforce dominant positions, and work against the four freedoms. In the United States, where the principle of software patentability was validated in 1998 by the software law, software patents have generated many costly procedures and trials, and the system actually turns out to be prejudicial to the software industry.

Europe Needs Help

There is a lot of work to be done in Europe. Digital Majority continues to identify new places where the Community patent rears its ugly head. The latest examples are the following four articles:

  1. Pharmaceutical Sector: EC Competition Rules ./. Patent System?
  2. Ministers give green light to Small Business Act
  3. The Small Business Act: a crucial element of Europe’s economic recovery
  4. Commissioner Fígel’: EU must unlock its ‘innovative capacity’

The Community patent is also seeing another window of opportunity, which is dangerous. Here are a couple of new articles about this:

1. EU seen edging towards deal on patents in 2009

A deal on a so-called community patent has long eluded the 27 European Union governments, due to spats over which languages to use and what sort of legal framework was needed.

2. French IP chief confident of European patent breakthrough in 2009, but we’ve heard it all before

As we all now know, the hoped for breakthrough under the French presidency did not happen. The reasons for this are basically those that I have already explained in previous blogs: problems over language and money for the national patent offices. However, Battistelli declared that, although there were still major difficulties to resolve in these two areas, as well as a number of specific technical problems to overcome with regard to the court, the glass was now 80% to 90% full. “I am optimistic that the forthcoming [Czech and Swedish] presidencies can build on this and that there will be good news in 2009,” he said.

One thing that can be tackled is the legitimacy of the reign at the EPO [PDF].

Why do you allow the European Patent Office to control the patent inflation and innovation of the EU, being a foreign institution to the EU?

A few months ago, Richard Stallman wrote that “staff at the European Patent Office went on strike accusing the organization of corruption: specifically, stretching the standards for patents in order to make more money.

“One of the ways that the EPO has done this is by issuing software patents in defiance of the treaty that set it up.”

Alison Brimelow

Patent Abusers

In absence of careful quality control and supervision of standards, the world might end up with another Rambus-like ambush, which leads to embargoes. This is neither healthy to development nor to consumers.

Rambus Inc. (RMBS: News ), which develops and licenses chip interface technologies and architectures used in digital electronics products, said Thursday that the U.S. International Trade Commission has agreed to its request and instituted a probe regarding alleged infringement of nine of the company’s patents by graphics chip maker NVIDIA Corp. (NVDA) and others whose products incorporate the disputed NVIDIA products.

The IEEE continues to mess things up by facilitating patents inside standards. Just in: “IEEE to Set up Patent Pools to Simplify Standards Adoption”

Would it not be better to deny patents in standards altogether, so as to accommodate free (as in Freedom) products? These two things — patents and Freedom — mix together like water and sand [1, 2] and Microsoft, for example, is exploiting this (along with the BSA).

It’s pointed out by the Microsoft-friendly press (Seattle Times) that Microsoft continues hogging and hoarding monopolies on algorithms.

Microsoft received 1,649 U.S. patents in 2007, the most by far of any software company, according to the Patents Scorecard produced by IEEE Spectrum and released this week.

Microsoft wants to fight using patents, but it does not target giants like IBM. It targets smaller companies like Red Hat, Mandriva, and Canonical. IBM is able to change its way if so it desires. It’s time to pick a side.

“Intellectual property is the next software.”

Nathan Myhrvold, Microsoft patent troll

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

9 Comments

  1. G. Michaels said,

    December 8, 2008 at 8:36 pm

    Gravatar

    Can you please provide proof that Microsoft has abused a patent?

    I’m not saying they haven’t, but since you included them in the “Patent abusers” section, I figure you have something more meaningful than just your claims of “hoarding”, which AFAIK is mostly for defensive purposes.

    And offtopic (plus to merit my scarlet letter), here’s a comment posted in reply to your nymshifter friend over on Slashdot. I thought it would be nice to share – I doubt he’s going to paste it into your IRC conversation tonight. Food for thought? Personally I think it’s a waste of time but maybe you can convince him to stay on the right track this time and stop disrupting other communities like you claim yours is… although with all these accounts maybe the temptation is too great. Who knows.

    Note: writer of this comment adds absolutely nothing but stalking and personal attacks against readers, as documented here.

  2. andre said,

    December 9, 2008 at 9:34 am

    Gravatar

    About the SMB2 licensing: “Microsoft has patents that may cover your implementations of the protocols. Neither this notice nor Microsoft’s delivery of the documentation grants any licenses under those or any other Microsoft patents. However, the protocols may be covered by Microsoft’s Open Specification Promise (available here: http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp). If you would prefer a written license, or if the protocols are not covered by the OSP, patent licenses are available by contacting protocol@microsoft.com.” While the company may not have abused its patents and may inform the public properly about potential problems that may arise if you may want to implement their interoperability portfolio, it clearly has abused the good will of European competition authorities with its insistance on trade secrets covering interface information. Many European competitors still feel ripped off by the American company and the inability of the authorities to enforce their sanctions against a rogue plaintiff that attempts to “outspent” foreign governments. There is a simple solution to the software patent mess and this is reform of substantive patent law including an interoperability priviledge as found 100% consensus in the CII directive.

  3. Roy Schestowitz said,

    December 9, 2008 at 9:38 am

    Gravatar

    Microsoft has already been aiming at embargo (product removal) using their patents.

  4. Gentoo User said,

    December 9, 2008 at 1:10 pm

    Gravatar

    “I doubt he’s going to paste it into your IRC conversation tonight. ”

    He did, but he called it an “M$ threat”. A threat.

    Oh, I forget. I’m not supposed to talk about Schestowitz friends, no matter how disruptive they are to other communities. He on the other hand, does not tolerate that and appends red text to my comments because I’m not posting from a Gentoo box. Right.

    Note: comment arrived from a witch hunter that does not even use GNU/Linux.

  5. andre said,

    December 9, 2008 at 7:27 pm

    Gravatar

    I use Vista and all ordinary people tell me that I shouldn’t. My operating system is firefox anyway. Move the trash out, install your essential free software portfolio, OpenOffice, Firefox, Thunderbird, Vuze, VLC, notepad++, pidgin etc and so on… Sorry, I am just to lazy to install another operating system or bios because operating systems are obsolete anyway. Kill the patents and we don’t need the hypocrisy to use alternative installation sources.

  6. G. Michaels said,

    December 9, 2008 at 8:50 pm

    Gravatar

    @Andre: Shortly, a few people will descend on here to tell you that you are:

    - Terminally retarded
    - Lying
    - Employed by Microsoft (or “M$”)
    - Not employed by Microsoft, but terminally retarded
    - Lying and retarded.
    - Employed by Microsoft, and lying.
    - Stalking people.
    - A Slashdot user.

    Don’t worry, this is just the way people here advocate free software. If you do ever decide to try Linux, make sure you use other venues, like the Ubuntu mailing lists, which are much friendlier than sites who claim to advocate but spend 99% of their time and bandwidth bashing.

    Note: writer of this comment adds absolutely nothing but stalking and personal attacks against readers, as documented here.

  7. G. Michaels said,

    December 9, 2008 at 8:51 pm

    Gravatar

    @Roy, so the answer is no, then. Thanks.

    Note: writer of this comment adds absolutely nothing but stalking and personal attacks against readers, as documented here.

  8. G. Michaels said,

    December 9, 2008 at 8:53 pm

    Gravatar

    He did, but he called it an “M$ threat”. A threat.

    And he was probably warned about it so he could post it in IRC.

    Wrap your brain around the mental processes of someone who calls that a threat. Go ahead, I dare you.

    Note: writer of this comment adds absolutely nothing but stalking and personal attacks against readers, as documented here.

  9. stevetheFLY said,

    December 10, 2008 at 3:38 am

    Gravatar

    I can see the day when ALL of Roy’s visitors here will have red lines tagging their posts… Well, it’s on honor to be marked out like that on the site of a self-referencing smear-campaigner.

    Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an incarnation of a known (eet), pseudonymous, forever-nymshifting, abusive Internet troll that posts from open proxies and relays around the world.

What Else is New


  1. Links 22/11/2017: Qt 5.9.3 Released, FCC v the Internet

    Links for the day



  2. Patent Lawyers' Media Comes to Grips With the End of Software Patents

    The reality of the matter is grim for software patents and the patent microcosm, 'borrowing' the media as usual, tries to give false hopes by insinuating that the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) may overturn Alice quite soon



  3. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Foes Manipulate the Facts to Belittle the Impact of PTAB

    In an effort to sabotage PTAB with its inter partes reviews the patent microcosm is organising one-sided events that slam PTAB's legitimacy and misrepresent statistics



  4. Links 21/11/2017: LibreELEC (Krypton) v8.2.1 MR, Mesa 17.3.0 RC5

    Links for the day



  5. PTAB Inter Partes Reviews (“IPRs”) Are Essential in an Age When One Can Get Sued for Merely Mocking a Patent

    The battle over the right to criticise particular patents has gotten very real and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) fought it until the end; this is why we need granted patents to be criticised upon petitions too (and often invalidated as a result)



  6. Chinese Patent Policy Continues to Mimic All the Worst Elements of the American System

    China is becoming what the United States used to be in terms of patents, whereas the American system is adopting saner patent policies that foster real innovation whilst curtailing mass litigation



  7. Links 20/11/2017: Why GNU/Linux is Better Than Windows, Another Linus Torvalds Rant

    Links for the day



  8. “US Inventor” is a “Bucket of Deplorables” Not Worthy of Media Coverage

    Jan Wolfe of Reuters treats a fringe group called “US Inventor” as though it's a conservative voice rather than a bunch of patent extremists pretending to be inventors



  9. Team Battistelli's Attacks on the EPO Boards of Appeal Predate the Illegal Sanctions Against a Judge

    A walk back along memory lane reveals that Battistelli has, all along, suppressed and marginalised DG3 members, in order to cement total control over the entire Organisation, not just the Office



  10. PTAB is Safe, the Patent Extremists Just Try to Scandalise It Out of Sheer Desperation

    The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), which gave powers to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) through inter partes reviews (IPRs), has no imminent threats, not potent ones anyway



  11. Update on the EPO's Crackdown on the Boards of Appeal

    Demand of 35% increases from the boards serves to show that Battistelli now does to the 'independent' judges what he already did to examiners at the Office



  12. The Lobbyists Are Trying to Subvert US Law in Favour of Patent Predators

    Mingorance, Kappos, Underweiser and other lobbyists for the software patents agenda (paid by firms like Microsoft and IBM) keep trying to undo progress, notably the bans on software patents



  13. Patent Trolls Based in East Texas Are Affected Very Critically by TC Heartland

    The latest situation in Texas (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in particular), which according to new analyses is the target of legal scrutiny for the 'loopholes' it provided to patent trolls in search of easy legal battles



  14. Alice Remains a Strong Precedential Decision and the Media Has Turned Against Software Patents

    The momentum against the scourge of software patents and the desperation among patent 'professionals' (people who don't create/develop/invent) is growing



  15. Harm Still Caused by Granted Software Patents

    A roundup of recent (past week's) announcements, including legal actions, contingent upon software patents in an age when software patents bear no real legitimacy



  16. Links 18/11/2017: Raspberry Digital Signage 10, New Nano

    Links for the day



  17. 23,000 Posts

    23,000 blog posts milestone reached in 11 years



  18. BlackBerry Cannot Sell Phones and Apple Looks Like the Next BlackBerry (a Pile of Patents)

    The lifecycle of mobile giants seems to typically end in patent shakedown, as Apple loses its business to Android just like Nokia and BlackBerry lost it to Apple



  19. EFF and CCIA Use Docket Navigator and Lex Machina to Identify 'Stupid Patents' (Usually Software Patents That Are Not Valid)

    In spite of threats and lawsuits from bogus 'inventors' whom they criticise, EFF staff continues the battle against patents that should never have been granted at all



  20. The Australian Productivity Commission Shows the Correct Approach to Setting Patent Laws and Scope

    Australia views patents on software as undesirable and acts accordingly, making nobody angry except a bunch of law firms that profited from litigation and patent maximalism



  21. EPO 'Business' From the United States Has Nosedived and UPC is on Its Death Throes

    Benoît Battistelli and Elodie Bergot further accelerate the ultimate demise of the EPO (getting rid of experienced and thus 'expensive' staff), for which there is no replacement because there is a monopoly (which means Europe will suffer severely)



  22. Links 17/11/2017: KDE Applications 17.12, Akademy 2018 Plans

    Links for the day



  23. Today's EPO and Team UPC Do Not Work for Europe But Actively Work Against Europe

    The tough reality that some Europeans actively work to undermine science and technology in Europe because they personally profit from it and how this relates to the Unitary Patent (UPC), which is still aggressively lobbied for, sometimes by bribing/manipulating the media, academia, and public servants



  24. Links 16/11/2017: WordPress 4.9 and GhostBSD 11.1 Released

    Links for the day



  25. The Staff Union of the EPO (SUEPO) is Rightly Upset If Not Shocked at What Battistelli and Bergot Are Doing to the Office

    The EPO's dictatorial management is destroying everything that's left (of value) at the Office while corrupting academia and censoring discussion by threatening those who publish comments (gagging its own staff even when that staff posts anonymously)



  26. EPO Continues to Disobey the Law on Software Patents in Europe

    Using the same old euphemisms, e.g. "computer-implemented inventions" (or "CII"), the EPO continues to grant patents which are clearly and strictly out of scope



  27. Links 16/11/2017: Tails 3.3, Deepin 15.5 Beta

    Links for the day



  28. Benoît Battistelli and Elodie Bergot Have Just Ensured That EPO Will Get Even More Corrupt

    Revolving door-type tactics will become more widespread at the EPO now that the management (Battistelli and his cronies) hires for low cost rather than skills/quality and minimises staff retention; this is yet another reason to dread anything like the UPC, which prioritises litigation over examination



  29. Australia is Banning Software Patents and Shelston IP is Complaining as Usual

    The Australian Productivity Commission, which defies copyright and patent bullies, is finally having policies put in place that better serve the interests of Australians, but the legal 'industry' is unhappy (as expected)



  30. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Defended by Technology Giants, by Small Companies, by US Congress and by Judges, So Why Does USPTO Make It Less Accessible?

    In spite of the popularity of PTAB and the growing need/demand for it, the US patent system is apparently determined to help it discriminate against poor petitioners (who probably need PTAB the most)


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts