Gemini version available ♊︎

A Demise of the Patent Plot Against Linux

Posted in Apple, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Patents at 1:50 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Apples in basket

Summary: As misconceptions about the patent systems get removed and Google’s patents heap expands massively, a ban of Android devices proves counter-productive to Apple and there appears to be a growing push for reassessments, even from Google

JUDGING by the news, patent unrest has become part of the national debate and agenda. As always, lobbyists try to reverse this trend.

Microsoft Florian is still up to old tricks (see the comments too) and his lobbying agenda provides new distortions from a former Microsoft lawyer who helps distract from analyses of the Motorola deal. A known foe of the patent systems writes:

So let’s get this straight. Apple and Samsung are suing each other, while Apple relies on another division of Samsung for key parts. Apple and Microsoft–and apparently RIM–are using patents aggressively to stop competition, despite each having been hammered hard by others (including patent trolls) for patent infringement. Google, who seems to want patents for defensive purposes, lost out on the Nortel patent shield (acquired by its competitors Apple, RIM, Microsoft, etc.), but has paid billions of dollars now for patents from IBM and even from Motorola (recently its patent enemy), and may pay more for Interdigital’s patents–in a continuing escalation of the patent war in the smartphone segment of the market.

It all helps substantiate calls for a fix to the patent system, which has become a tool for Apple’s litigation and blocking of competition. Giga Om indicates that Apple’s embargo attempts are failing because the claims are weak and Apple’s fabricated 'evidence' can only make matters worse. Glyn Moody’s latest analysis goes along the following lines:

In the present case, that Community design [.pdf] consists of a drawing of a rectangular tablet with rounded corners and a border. That’s it: it’s as vague as a very vague thing can be, but apparently it’s enough to get Samsung’s tablet blocked in Europe because they, too, are rectangular with rounded corners and a border.

“The European Commission has created a monster here,” explains Moody, “one that most of us (myself included) didn’t even know existed. Clearly, this horror needs slaying before it starts marauding through the entire European economy, wreaking havoc on a scale that makes today’s patent litigation look like playground fistifcuffs.”

The Inquirer says that the ban has already been partially lifted and one GNU/Linux advocate notes that “[e]ventually Apple will have gained nothing from this litigation except some hefty legal bills.”

“The Android army marches on….”

Peter Köhlmann, a German GNU/Linux advocate, says: “The whole thing is a riot. It has been the *wrong* court from the start. If apple wanted to ban the device in Europe, there is exactly *one* court which is applicable: The Trade court in Alicante / Spain

“And for Germany the Düsseldorf court was also the wrong one, they must use the one in Frankfurt, because that is where Samsung/Germany is located.

“So expect a *very* costly decision for apple to chose the wrong court and, to top it a little, use manipulated evidence.”

With over 650,000 activations a day, Android is now making Linux very prevalent on mobile devices while the Microsoft-boosting cult promotes Microsoft’s patent propaganda book. How shameful. They just cannot advise people to buy Windows phones, so they try to assure Microsoft tax on Linux.

Google is meanwhile exploring routes to defanging patent trolls, which Motorola’s patent portfolio cannot be effective against. Katherine Noyes uses the whole case to say that this is why we need to kill all software patents. “If there’s any lesson to be learned from Google’s news-making activities these past few days,” she explains, “it’s that software patents are a problem.”

“The most recent illustration, of course, is Google’s $12.5 billion purchase of Motorola Mobility, clearly a strategy for gaining the latter’s considerable catalog of patents.”

Mike Masnick adds that startups needing patents is a myth too:

While I’m not as much in agreement with the crew of folks who likes to separate out “software patents” from the rest of the patent system (the whole system is broken), I can see serious problems with the way that “software” is patented these days. I tend to think that the fix isn’t to carve out software patents, but to fix the whole system itself. Still, if we look at what are generally considered software patents, it does seem clear that they are doing tremendous damage to the industry and innovation as a whole — and thus are very much in violation of the Constitution’s patent clause which only allows for a patent system if it “promotes the progress.” Tim Lee points us to James Besson’s most recent paper, in which he analyzes a generation’s worth of software patents and shows how such little most in the software industry actually seem to want patents. In fact, it’s mostly those outside of the industry who obtain software patents.

Patently-O joined this debate about software patents by pointing out that:

In an important decision, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has rendered many broadly written software patents invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as interpreted by Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010). Most patent decisions involve questions of whether an invention is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) or sufficiently described under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Section 101 asks a slightly different question – whether the patented invention is the type of innovation that properly fits within our patent system. In language virtually unchanged for over 200 years, Section 101 indicates that a patent should be awarded to the inventor of “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” Over the years, courts have repeatedly held that Section 101 bars the patenting of ‘laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas.’

So that ought to exclude mathematics, which is what a lot of software essentially implements at a lower conceptual level.

The USPTO says it has granted 8,000,000 monopolies on ideas so far. Does that actually promote progress or only an illusion of advancement? At Microsoft, patents used for vapourware is still the modus operandi, perhaps for PR purpose. Everything for mobile patents blackmail and Windows 8 hype. Hopefully the next version Windows will emulate the mobile platform and suffer a similar fate. It seems like neither Apple nor Microsoft could face Android without some legal harassment, and that too is ultimately failing because Google found armament opportunities. Interesting times ahead.

Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Reddit
  • email

Decor ᶃ Gemini Space

Below is a Web proxy. We recommend getting a Gemini client/browser.

Black/white/grey bullet button This post is also available in Gemini over at this address (requires a Gemini client/browser to open).

Decor ✐ Cross-references

Black/white/grey bullet button Pages that cross-reference this one, if any exist, are listed below or will be listed below over time.

Decor ▢ Respond and Discuss

Black/white/grey bullet button If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.


  1. Jose_X said,

    August 18, 2011 at 1:24 am


    The patently-o article (now also covered on techdirt) is HUGE. Regardless of possible mistakes in the details, it is about time(?) the sorts of complaints the FSF, the FFII, and others produced for Bilski and earlier cases get worked into some sort of court/USPTO test that is specific to computers and mental steps (and not just “abstract ideas”). Apparently (reading some of the comments on patently-o), this is not really new if we go back decades, but at least since State Street much was thrown out of whack. Ned Heller covers history of this leading up to Gottschalk v. Benson in a comment on the patently-o article.

    From another patently-o comment:
    [Wolf359] >> I have my name on 45 patents for software and/or mathematical processes and I wouldn’t be sad if they were all invalidated.

    I can almost see the day when saying “Linux or FOSS infringes on a patent” will be laughed at by almost any decent tech firm.

    Jose_X Reply:

    >> The patently-o article (now also covered on techdirt) is HUGE.

    I meant to say that the *court decision* covered in that patently-o article is huge (at least once any “bugs” are ironed out).

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    What’s the TechDirt link?

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    Thanks, I did a post about it today.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    Over the past few months I have been in touch with someone who holds about 15 patents, which I convince him to give to the community/OIN in order to impede Apple’s attack on Android/tablets. He was happy to donate these patents and this morning I received an E-mail about a transaction.

    Patents are about recognition sometimes, not hoarding of money.

    Jose_X Reply:

    But we wouldn’t need the patent (monopoly) system for that!

    One can support the patent-like recognition or get patents for many reasons without supporting the current patent system.

    Jose_X Reply:

    I read the actual Court opinion and no longer feel this was such an awesome ruling. It’s not negative, but there are shades of negative interpretations hanging around this particular Court (as precedent). The particular patents were weak in a number of areas, and that is why they were knocked down.

    The Court cites a Microsoft case perhaps to suggest that if the software is complex enough (and doesn’t fail in some other ways), it might then not be ruled abstract or mental steps. My earlier hope was that all software would be “mental steps” and “abstract” as judged by the ruling.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    Have you seen this from Slashdot? It links to TechDirt and to Timothy B. Lee as well.
    Katherine Noyes also has a new piece.

    Jose_X Reply:

    The following was quoted from arstechnica >> Of course, all computer programs implement mathematical algorithms that could, in principle, be implemented with a pencil and paper. So is this the end of software patents? Unfortunately not. The court ruled that the no-patenting-math rule doesn’t apply if the math in question complicated enough that “as a practical matter, the use of a computer is required” to perform the calculations.

  2. saulgoode said,

    August 18, 2011 at 5:05 pm


    The appellate ruling does contain some ugliness, however, it is far less ugly than their previous rulings (the ones which led to the acceptance of software patentability despite the Supreme Court having stipulated otherwise).

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    I think that TechDirt stretched the truth here.

  3. twitter said,

    August 19, 2011 at 3:39 pm


    Groklaw has weighed in. The details seem to bear out a broader interpretation of Bilski than patent advocates would have people believe. The machine or transformation test is used and probably nukes all software patents.

    The mere collection and organization of data regarding credit card numbers and Internet addresses is insufficient to meet the transformation prong of the test, and the plain language of claim 3 does not require the method to be performed by a particular machine, or even a machine at all.

    It is a shame they have to go through all of these mental and verbal gymnastics when they could just realize that software is math and math, no matter how clever, is not an invention.

    twitter Reply:

    The Groklaw summary is, “If you can do it in your head or simply with a paper and pencil, simply claiming to perform the mental task on a computer or over the internet or storing it on computer readable media will not make it patent eligible”

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    Thanks for the pointer. I will use it later.

    BT had a 14-hour downtimes in my area today. I’m catching up now.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:


DecorWhat Else is New

  1. Links 25/1/2022: GPL Settlement With Patrick McHardy, Godot 4.0 Alpha 1, and DXVK 1.9.4 Released

    Links for the day

  2. Proprietary Software is Pollution

    "My daughter asked me about why are we throwing away some bits of technology," Dr. Andy Farnell says. "This is my attempt to put into words for "ordinary" people what I tried to explain to a 6 year old."

  3. Microsoft GitHub Exposé — Part XV — Cover-Up and Defamation

    Defamation of one’s victims might be another offence to add to the long list of offences committed by Microsoft’s Chief Architect of GitHub Copilot, Balabhadra (Alex) Graveley; attempting to discredit the police report is a new low and can get Mr. Graveley even deeper in trouble (Microsoft protecting him only makes matters worse)

  4. [Meme] Alexander Ramsay and Team UPC Inciting Politicians to Break the Law and Violate Constitutions, Based on Misinformation, Fake News, and Deliberate Lies Wrapped up as 'Studies'

    The EPO‘s law-breaking leadership (Benoît Battistelli, António Campinos and their corrupt cronies), helped by liars who don't enjoy diplomatic immunity, are cooperating to undermine courts across the EU, in effect replacing them with EPO puppets who are patent maximalists (Europe’s equivalents of James Rodney Gilstrap and Alan D Albright, a Donald Trump appointee, in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas, respectively)

  5. Has the Administrative Council Belatedly Realised What Its Job in the European Patent Organisation Really Is?

    The "Mafia" which took over the EPO (the EPO's own workers call it "Mafia") isn't getting its way with a proposal, so it's preventing the states from even voting on it!

  6. [Meme] Team UPC is Celebrating a Pyrrhic Victory

    Pyrrhic victory best describes what's happening at the moment (it’s a lobbying tactic, faking/staging things to help false prophecies be fulfilled, based on hopes and wishes alone), for faking something without bothering to explain the legal basis is going to lead to further escalations and complaints (already impending)

  7. Links 24/1/2022: Scribus 1.5.8 and LXLE Reviewed

    Links for the day

  8. IRC Proceedings: Sunday, January 23, 2022

    IRC logs for Sunday, January 23, 2022

  9. [Meme] Team UPC Congratulating Itself

    The barrage of fake news and misinformation about the UPC deliberately leaves out all the obvious and very important facts; even the EPO‘s António Campinos and Breton (Benoît Battistelli‘s buddy) participated in the lying

  10. Links 24/1/2022: pgBadger 11.7 Released, Catch-up With Patents

    Links for the day

  11. The Demonisation and Stereotyping of Coders Not Working for Big Corporations (or 'The System')

    The war on encrypted communication (or secure communications) carries on despite a lack of evidence that encryption stands in the way of crime investigations (most criminals use none of it)

  12. On the 'Peak Hacker' Series

    Hacker culture, unlike Ludditism, is ultimately a movement for justice, for equality, and for human rights through personal and collective emancipation; Dr. Farnell has done a good job explaining where we stand and his splendid series has come to a close

  13. Links 23/1/2022: First RC of Linux 5.17 and Sway 1.7 Released

    Links for the day

  14. Peak Code — Part III: After Code

    "Surveillance perimeters, smart TVs (Telescreens built to Orwell's original blueprint) watched over our living rooms. Mandatory smart everything kept us 'trustless'. Safe search, safe thoughts. We withdrew. Inside, we went quietly mad."

  15. IRC Proceedings: Saturday, January 22, 2022

    IRC logs for Saturday, January 22, 2022

  16. Links 23/1/2022: MongoDB 5.2, BuddyPress 10.0.0, and GNU Parallel 20220122

    Links for the day

  17. A Parade of Fake News About the UPC Does Not Change the General Consensus or the Simple Facts

    European Patents (EPs) from the EPO are granted in violation of the EPC; Courts are now targeted by António Campinos and the minions he associates with (mostly parasitic litigation firms and monopolists), for they want puppets for “judges” and for invalid patents to be magically rendered “valid” and “enforceable”

  18. Welcome to 2022: Intentional Lies Are 'Benefits' and 'Alternative Facts'

    A crooks-run EPO, together with the patent litigation cabal that we’ve dubbed ‘Team UPC’ (it has nothing to do with science or with innovation), is spreading tons of misinformation; the lies are designed to make the law-breaking seem OK, knowing that Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos are practically above the law, so perjury as well as gross violations of the EPC and constitutions won’t scare them (prosecution as deterrence just isn’t there, which is another inherent problem with the UPC)

  19. From Software Eating the World to the Pentagon Eating All the Software

    “Software is eating the world,” according to Marc Andreessen (co-founder of Netscape), but the Empire Strikes Back (not the movie, the actual empire) by hijacking all code by proxy, via Microsoft, just as it grabbed a lot of the world’s communications via Skype, bypassing the world's many national telecoms; coders need to fight back rather than participate in racist (imperial) shams such as GitHub

  20. Links 22/1/2022: Skrooge 2.27.0 and Ray-Tracing Stuff

    Links for the day

  21. IRC Proceedings: Friday, January 21, 2022

    IRC logs for Friday, January 21, 2022

  22. Peak Code — Part II: Lost Source

    "Debian and Mozilla played along. They were made “Yeoman Freeholders” in return for rewriting their charters to “work closely with the new Ministry in the interests of all stakeholders” – or some-such vacuous spout… because no one remembers… after that it started."

  23. Links 22/1/2022: Ubuntu MATE 21.10 for GPD Pocket 3, MINISFORUM Preloads GNU/Linux

    Links for the day

  24. Computer Users Should be Operators, But Instead They're Being Operated by Vendors and Governments

    Computers have been turned into hostile black boxes (unlike Blackbox) that distrust the person who purchased them; moreover, from a legislative point of view, encryption (i.e. computer security) is perceived and treated by governments like a threat instead of something imperative — a necessity for society’s empowerment (privacy is about control and people in positions of unjust power want total and complete control)

  25. Peak Code — Part I: Before the Wars

    Article/series by Dr. Andy Farnell: "in the period between 1960 and 2060 people had mistaken what they called "The Internet" for a communications system, when it had in fact been an Ideal and a Battleground all along - the site of the 100 years info-war."

  26. Links 21/1/2022: RISC-V Development Board and Rust 1.58.1

    Links for the day

  27. IRC Proceedings: Thursday, January 20, 2022

    IRC logs for Thursday, January 20, 2022

  28. Gemini Lets You Control the Presentation Layer to Suit Your Own Needs

    In Gemini (or the Web as seen through Gemini clients such as Kristall) the user comes first; it's not sites/capsules that tell the user how pages are presented/rendered, as they decide only on structural/semantic aspects

  29. The Future of Techrights

    Futures are difficult to predict, but our general vision for the years ahead revolves around more community involvement and less (none or decreased) reliance on third parties, especially monopolistic corporations, mostly because they oppress the population via the network and via electronic devices

  30. [Meme] UPC for CJEU

    When you do illegal things and knowingly break the law to get started with a “legal” system you know it’ll end up in tears… or the CJEU

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

Recent Posts