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

12.11.08

Linux Defenders: Obeying — Not Challenging — a Broken System

Posted in Deception, Europe, Finance, Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Novell, Patents at 10:21 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

THOSE WHO FOLLOWED RECENT posts about this subject [1, 2, 3] already know that we are not huge fans of the “Linux Defenders” initiative; not because it’s ineffective but because it’s the wrong way to approach the problem. It is a way that pleases big companies (and funding sources) like IBM, i.e. it keeps the things IBM likes and tackles those which it does not like. IBM is, sadly enough, not opposed to software patents. It just wants to weed out the ‘nuisance’ that’s a by-product.

To address the Big Issues, one needs to spend less time pushing papers and more effort fighting Microsoft’s (and others’) expansion of software patent laws — or alternatively back doors — into more countries. The suppressors want universal consent that Microsoft owns all sorts of algorithms and that Free software therefore becomes illegitimate or “not free”.

It used to be the same with DMCA, which expanded and expanded and expanded globally. It’s about taking people’s rights away, however artificially it needs to be done. (Sheesh! Just don’t mention the ACTA [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16])

The following article about “Linux Defenders” reminds readers of the source of this push, which is tied to IBM and even Novell.

The whole setup was apparently the brainchild of the Open Invention Network (the OIN registered the linuxdefenders.org domain, in fact), which appears to be patent-friendly twin of Linux defenders. The New York University’s Center for Patent Innovation provided some of the intellectual foundations for the group, and maintains the sites devoted to patent peer review.

Overall, this seems like a lot of effort to dedicate to simply staying out of trouble but, as the SCO case demonstrated, even spurious patent claims can keep open source software (and the companies that rely on it) tied up in court for years. Unless and until the patent system is reformed, Linux Defenders appears to be a necessary protective measure.

Here is a questionable bit from Heise.

Such projects are extremely important to the long term future of open source, which by its nature is vulnerable to patent attacks. As open source grows and gains commercial acceptance, it becomes a more tempting target for patent trolls.

Well, by OIN’s own admission, this approach does not stifle patent trolls. As such, to describe “Linux Defenders” as a response to patent-trolling is totally missing the point.

Digital Majority has been very active recently because it’s keeping an eye on articles discussing the patentability of software, e.g.:

  1. Patents Act 1977: Patentability of computer programs
  2. What “as such” means, what it really, really, nearly means …

EurActiv has been peddling a lot of Microsoft-serving agenda recently. It seems to be ushering a system that would potentially contaminate EU law with the sordid chaos that's the USPTO.

Several days ago we wrote about one example (ACT, a Microsoft shill, pushing for software patent loopholes in the EU), which Glyn Moody finally comments on as well.

The ACT seems to think that the patent system works so well in the US, that Europe absolutely must ditch its own quaintly fragmented approach, and adopt a nicely unified one closer to the Stateside model.

Pity, then, that books like Patent Failure provide hundreds of pages of incontrovertible evidence that the patent system there actually costs more money – in terms of litigation – than it generates for patent holders, with the possible exception of the pharmaceutical industry (and we all know what paragons they are, especially in their licensing terms to developing countries.)

EurActiv is now offering a full interview with a known Microsoft mouthpiece [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]. Microsoft is not even mentioned in the form of disclosure in this article and Jonathan Zuck keeps pretending to be a representative of small businesses, which he is not.

Fragmentation of the EU’s single market and particularly its patent system represent major obstacles to innovation, which is mainly driven by SMEs, Jonathan Zuck, president of an association representing more than 3,000 small and mid-sized IT firms from around the world, told EurActiv in an interview.

How many of these “3,000 small and mid-sized IT firms from around the world” actually fund Jonathan Zuck and ACT (or other shells)? On the face of it, none. This is not the first time that large businesses like Microsoft and their lobbies steal the voices of small ones.

These hired guns from ACT have even released a ‘study’ and it’s worth remembering who funds them.

There is a new page in “Worst EU Lobby Awards 2008″. ACT is not alone then.

There has been a broad discussion about his role in the debate about software patents in the European Parliament. Lehne has been one of the MEPs pushing for software patents, while Taylor Wessing has a large patent group and advises clients on patenting strategy in the software sector. Lehne has argued that he wasn’t involved with any companies engaged in the patents debate in his work as a lawyer. But still he is a partner in a law firm that boasts that its “patent group is one of the strongest, largest and best known in Europe”.

In conclusion, lobbying is to Microsoft what flying it to a bird. And it continues to this date. “Linux Defenders” is handling small potatoes whilst some big animals in the back yard are messing up with all the plantations. The “defenders” deal with grains, not crops.

In order to step up and resolve this litigious problem, people must never be led to believe that the cure lies in probing of patents one at a time while praying that laws will stay the same and hostile peers will be merciful. History is not forgiving.

Laws constantly want to be changed because companies and fortune holders always strive to elevate their level of power and control. As Richard Stallman once said, “geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won’t leave you alone.” He also said that “fighting patents one by one will never eliminate the danger of software patents, any more than swatting mosquitoes will eliminate malaria” and, to summarise more generally, “value your freedom or you will lose it, teaches history.”

Lincoln_address 1958

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

6 Comments

  1. Paul Gaskin said,

    December 11, 2008 at 2:50 pm

    Gravatar

    Roy, you’re right on point here. I feel the same way about the accumulation of software patent claims by both sides – it legitimizes a bad thing – software patents.

    Companies based on free software should be attacking the legitimacy of software patents, not filing their own.

  2. David Mohring (NZheretic) said,

    December 11, 2008 at 6:40 pm

    Gravatar

    As I answered Douglas Sorocco back in February 2006 What anti-software patent advocates want.

    Because of the existing precedent, removing software patents will require the introduction of explicit legislation. That will take time, probably many years to undo the damage from the lobbying by intellectual monopoly advocates such as yourselves.

    Until then, helping he USPTO track down prior art in publicly available open source software will greatly reduce the number of patents the software development industry will have to concern itself with.

    Richard Stallman created the GPL in part to address the extension and abuse of the copyright system by vendors. The result today is a massive body of collected work ( well over 70% of Open Source software is L/GPL’ed ) that is far too tempting for the same type of vendors not to incorporate in their own products and services. Many vendors are also finally getting their collective heads around the idea that developing in a copylefted commons can be really beneficial.

    The GPL uses the existing rights granted by copyright legislation as a double edged sword. The collective efforts under the Defend Linux project should be seen the beginnings of the forging of a new set of swords. ( see Rule #1 : vendors lending legal support )

    What Defend Linux does is indicate to any vendor or even IP troll initiating an action against a open source project will result in their entire IP portfolio is going to be put under the closest scrutiny. Given the quality of most software patents, it will act as quite a deterrent.

    That does not mean that open source projects can just ignore patents, copyrights, trademarks and EULAs. Projects such as Mono are doubly dangerous because of the possibility Microsoft can claim that re-implementations of DotNet in C# can violate Microsoft’s copyrights ( remember, unlike examples such as Unix, Posix and Java., not all of DotNet has been submitted by Microsoft as a standard ).

  3. Roy Schestowitz said,

    December 11, 2008 at 6:51 pm

    Gravatar

    I think it is still better to spend time and effort creating and empowering a coalition against software patents. It’s a group effort. In this Groklaw post (visible to members only), PJ seems to be burning out a bit, but I hope us volunteers can become louder nonetheless.

    I will hopefully publish my interview with OIN’s CEO tomorrow. It’s them who approached me and they should definitely have decent answers. I support “Linux Defenders”, but we can go beyond it. Volunteers can do better and I’m not the only one feeling this way.

  4. oiaohm said,

    December 12, 2008 at 7:05 am

    Gravatar

    Do you understand the problem factor its causing Linux development.

    http://lwn.net/Articles/308806/ KSM feature Linux Developers are bring back from the graveyard. Problem is since when it was first put forward and now Vmware now holds a patent on the issue. KSM could be delayed by years because of the Patent feature if Vmware wants to fight. Yes Linux kernel has the prior art of prior development. Problem here is that using that prior art takes time and can be disputed since it was never registered.

    Battle has to be held on many sides. Linux Defenders is doing the one section that is required. Defense filings on important features that might get shelfed for one reason or another so in future Linux world can do them without head aches.

    Now of course placing defense filings even if they don’t perfectly cover the issue if they can be shown to be linked to a prior art that does it makes disputing the age of the prior art harder. Defense filings are not black and white limits. Defense filings have more traps than someone can dream on trying to create a new patent on top of.

    We have to be able to win in the current patent system. Not just always be losing out. Of course does this mean stopping pushing for the patent system to be scrapped. Of course not.

    Also IBM does not apply patents against open source developers or uses. So yes IBM is looking at using patents as a wrecking ball against closed source development. Same reason lot of closed source development backed software patents.

    Please remember IBM is IBM. They will do anything to get profit without doing major harm. Microsoft talked about software patents as a way to crush open source. IBM is looking the other way.

    Lets see how this plays out. If IBM wrecking ball is bad enough other closed source companies might decide they have to get rid of patents to live.

    IBM plays a far better long term game than most companies. Closed source wanted software patents so IBM is going to profit from them. Who are we to argue. If people are too dumb to see that what ever they can use against open source could equally be used against them its not our problem.

    Open Source supporting companies should be embracing software patents just from the pure damage side they can do to there closed source competition. Old rule cannot beat the join them.

  5. Roy Schestowitz said,

    December 12, 2008 at 7:19 am

    Gravatar

    I am not opposed to “Linux Defenders”. It’s a fine project, but it places emphasis where patents are authorised rather than eliminated or at least challenged.

    By the way, IBM is a proprietary software company and a defender of software patents. It still successfully misleads many people, maybe thanks to marketing.

  6. oiaohm said,

    December 13, 2008 at 2:01 am

    Gravatar

    What the the best way to destroy something you don’t want Roy.

    Support it and make it hell for everyone.

    Any patent IBM holds is not a threat to open source development. They have a very clear policy on the matter. If what you are doing does not restrict them from using your application IBM have no patent claim against you.

    Yes charging money for it IBM classes as restricting.

    Even if IBM went anti software patent where would it really get us. Anti-software patent means they cannot attack closed source companies with software patents. Effectively allowing a 1 sided attack against open source. Yes Open source would lose.

    To beat software patents is a multi path attack.

    We need offensive on two fronts. 1 front inside the rules like IBM is doing making software patents too costly to support for closed source companies so they start calling for them to be destroyed. 2 front trying to get the rules changed threw political work.

    Yes you might not like IBM game plain. Really it is a effective one.

    Defensive publications of what Open Source is doing will reduce areas where patents can be taken out.

    Take a closer look at IBM. It is not a pure proprietary software company. They are Dependant on open source to sell hardware they cannot afford to see it destroyed. So yes they will defend open source they have even bought patents out right so open source projects can keep on going. Yes patents that were not for any of there current or future products.

    Of course being a commercial company profits for share holders is important. IBM basically sees software patents as a way to make money. With IBM rules against attacking open source they are really a big problem for those who think patents will destroy open source.

    If you want to develop open specification hardware you can also freely use IBM’s patents as well. There patent rules are quite simple you want secrets pay. If you don’t want secrets its free.

What Else is New


  1. 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



  2. 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)



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

    Links for the day



  4. 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



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

    Links for the day



  6. 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)



  7. 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



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

    Links for the day



  9. 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



  10. 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)



  11. 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)



  12. Declines in Patent Quality at the EPO and 'Independent' Judges Can No Longer Say a Thing

    The EPO's troubling race to the bottom (of patent quality) concerns the staff examiners and the judges, but they cannot speak about it without facing rather severe consequences



  13. The EPO is Now Corrupting Academia, Wasting Stakeholders' Money Lying to Stakeholders About the Unitary Patent (UPC)

    The Unified Patent Court/Unitary Patent (UPC) is a dying project and the EPO, seeing that it is going nowhere fast, has resorted to new tactics and these tactics cost a lot of money (at the expense of those who are being lied to)



  14. Links 15/11/2017: Fedora 27 Released, Linux Mint Has New Betas

    Links for the day



  15. Patents Roundup: Packet Intelligence, B.E. Technology, Violin, and Square

    The latest stories and warnings about software patents in the United States



  16. Decline of Skills Level of Staff Like Examiners and Impartiality (Independence) of Judges at the EPO Should Cause Concern, Alarm

    Access to justice is severely compromised at the EPO as staff is led to rely on deficient tools for determining novelty while judges are kept out of the way or ill-chosen for an agenda other than justice



  17. Links 14/11/2017: GNU/Linux at Samsung, Firefox 57 Quantum

    Links for the day



  18. Microsoft: Sheltering Oneself From Patent Litigation While Passing Patents for Trolls to Attack GNU/Linux

    Another closer look at Provenance Asset Holdings and what exactly it is (connection to AST, part of the cartel Microsoft subsidises to shield itself)



  19. The Patent Trolls' Lobby is Losing the Battle for Europe

    The situation in Europe is looking grim for patent trolls, for their policies and the envisioned system (which they lobbied for) isn't coming to fruition and their main casualty is the old (and functioning) EPO



  20. Unitary Patent (UPC) is Dead to the EPO and ANSERA is Not the Answer as Patent Quality Declines and Talented Staff Leaves

    EPOPIC comes to an end and the EPO does not mention the UPC 'content' in it; ANSERA, in the meantime, raises more questions than it answers and IP Kat makes a formal query



  21. Why Honest Journalism on Patent Matters Barely Exists

    Media coverage in the area of patent law is still appalling as it's dominated if not monopolised by those who benefit from patent maximalism



  22. Patent Maximalism Around the World

    A roundup of stories or spin observed over the past week, mostly favouring those who profit from patents rather than creation of anything



  23. Links 13/11/2017: Samsung’s DeX Revisited, Linux Kernel 4.14 Released

    Links for the day



  24. Time for the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) to Disregard Rulings From the Eastern District of Texas

    A look at the latest developments at the Federal Circuit and some bits about Microsoft's extortion using software patents (even after Alice)



  25. Alice (De Facto Ban on Software Patents) Remains Untouched in 2017 and Likely in 2018 As Well

    The patent microcosm (people like Dennis Crouch) is trying to find cases that can contradict Alice (at the higher levels, especially the US Supreme Court) but is unable to find them; as things stand, suing anyone with a software patent seems like a losing/high-risk strategy



  26. The USPTO's Joe Matal (Interim Director) Sounds Serious About Improving the Patent Quality and Services

    An expressed desire to improve the US patent system rather than treat is like a money-making machine, as illuminated in recent days by Patently-O



  27. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Defends Firms From Bogus Patents and US Congress Hears About How PTAB Dodgers Misuse Immunity

    The debate about PTAB is being lost by the patent microcosm, whose attempt to dodge and demonise PTAB merely serves to reinforce PTAB's importance and continued success



  28. Links 11/11/2017: Mesa 17.2.5 and Wine 2.21 Released

    Links for the day



  29. Benoît Battistelli Gives Power to Željko Topić, Not Just to António Campinos

    Topić still derives power from Battistelli, who treats him like his right-hand man



  30. Next EPO President Will Continue a Cooperation Which Does Not Exist

    Kluwer Patent Blog is nitpicking the words of António Campinos and expressing scepticism about progress to be made by Campinos


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