Summary: Bad signs appear as Attachmate puts SUSE aside but continues to ‘hoard’ UNIX rights, dissociating one’s importance to the other
ATTACHMATE has been ensuring that it can maintain its status as a proprietary software company. Executives who were committed to a different agenda were mostly removed, expelled, or simply left. Mono developers were fired without exception and SUSE was relocated and relegated to Germany, where developers are now dependent on funding from Microsoft. What is actually left in Attachmate which is “open source”? Even Vibe was axed as we had predicted all along; it was in part based on Free software from Google (Wave).
Attachmate, a Microsoft Gold Certified Partner, is putting new people in charge and the Deccan Herald (insisting on just Internet Explorer or Netscape even in 2011) speaks about the spinoff called SUSE, which is basically partly funded by Microsoft now (to help put Microsoft tax on GNU/Linux servers). Attachmate is also the ‘owner’ of early UNIX copyrights, according to this latest report which adds:
“Novell’s board of directors adopted a resolution approving the sale, which specifically mentioned the copyrights were to be retained by Novell,” the judges said in the opinion.
This was the second time the appeals court ruled on this case. In the first appeal it reversed a lower-court ruling in Novell’s favor and sent the case back. After a two-week trial, the jury ruled Novell owned the copyrights. SCO appealed.
A spokeswoman for Linden, Utah-based SCO, Chantell Ferrin, didn’t immediately reply to messages seeking comment.
There is also a derailed analysis behind an apparent paywall at Lexology. We are still not sure what Attachmate will do with these copyrights. It is not as though the company has any commitment to Free software or to UNIX. Given the amount of time and money Novell has invested in this case, it is rather unlikely that UNIX will just be left there to rot and bring no revenue to Attachmate, even if through a sale. Unlike Novell, Attachmate has no need to keep up appearance and keep UNIX away from enemies of Linux. Will these be sold to IBM maybe? Or perhaps to some foe of Red Hat? This is a question that has generally bothered us since 2007 and we wrote about it many times before. We must pay attention to Attachmate’s actions and statements. █
Summary: Clarifications and explanations regarding the goal of a (yet theoretical) patent reform that would actually prove to be effective
EVERY ONCE in a while, someone suggests an amendment to the systems we have in place. Law and governance forever evolve, or devolve. On the one hand there are lobbyists working at the behest of people who seek to distort the system for their client/s and on the other hand there are grassroots efforts to make the systems more sane and civilised. It is an eternal battle and the power that wins depends on the integrity of politicians. If politics expels lobbyists and abolishes cronyism, then the return on investment becomes too low for lobbying to remain a compelling option. Bill Gates and his friend Nathan (the world’s biggest patent troll) have been lobbying a lot recently to further perturb patent policy in favour of the billionaires. It is a tough battle in the US. We covered the issue many times before and showed that lobbying for the billionaires is shrewdly being disguised as helping “the little guy” (or gal).
“But spending money upfront for the chance of a better world is our job. And it’s the right thing to do.” –Pascal-Emmanuel GobryTo confront or address this serious issue we must first define what the problems are. There is no single ‘camp’ here because some people want all software patents eliminated, some prefer to see only a portion of them (the “bad” ones) eliminated, and some just want to make patents work in favour of themselves or Linux (the "IBM way", maybe Google too based on its recent Android defence strategy).
Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry, a persistent critic of software patents as of late [1, 2, 3], makes suggestions for getting rid of patent trolls, which are more like a symptom than the main problem. Many of them use software patents and give the illusion that not only gigantic companies use patents to cause harm. “Every venture-backed startup needs to make a credible, public statement now: we will fight every patent troll case, to the Supreme Court if we have to,” suggests Gobry. “Every venture capitalist needs to make a credible, public statement: we will finance our portfolio companies’ cases against patent trolls. We recognize that it’s going to be a long, hard slog. We’re going to burn tons of money at first. But spending money upfront for the chance of a better world is our job. And it’s the right thing to do.”
Well, this is not the key problem and it “ignores they are *intended* part of patent system, though,” writes Georg Greve in relation to this article. Trying to pretend that getting rid of patent trolls is the only desired “reform” is what lobbyists of large companies have been doing. As we saw quite recently with Apple’s embargo threats and legal actions (with fake'evidence'), the problem is not just bigger than patent trolls; it is bigger than software patents, too. Sometimes we have patent cartels. According to this new article, Apple continues to pursue patents. Here is the latest:
A patent application submitted by Apple has revealed its plans to turn the iPod and iPhone into a mobile karaoke system that can help to teach amateur singers how to hit the right pitch and key.
The bottom line is, large companies — not just patent trolls — are exploiting the USPTO to make themselves rich. This leaves more than 99% of the US public totally betrayed by this system that their government fosters. █
Posted in IBM, Patents at 11:06 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
No change, just a lot of words
Summary: The head of the USPTO, David Kappos (above), speaks about the system he now has a lot of influence over. With a fine-tooth comb, the FFII’s president runs through his words.
THE COMPANY behind silent PR and silent lobbying for software patents has had one of its people arrive at the USPTO’s throne while another created the OIN, which in some sense legitimises software patents (it is a double-edged sword, but not so much for IBM). IBM is in favour of software patents because it has so many of them. Kappos himself belongs in the patent lawyers community, those who are leeches to software developers, they are very rarely developers themselves.
“The open source development model is absolutely fantastic,” says Mr. Kappos in this interview, but it goes downhill from there. Let us see how it starts:
Mm hmm. Yes. Software innovation in the open source area has been wonderful, and it has been a breakthrough business model. And great pieces of software, like the Linux operating system, as an example, have revolutionized much of what we do and are the basis for much of our computing on the Internet. The open source development model is absolutely fantastic.
Right. And what’s incompatible with this business model? That’s right, software patents. So it gets ruined from there on whenever Kappos talks about patents. The FFII’s president (Benjamin Henrion) did a fine job picking out the bits where he falters, such as the point where he says:
No matter what the field, whether it’s biotechnology or mousetraps or wheels, gears and sprockets, software
These are entirely different things. Why even lump them together? As Henrion explains:
Kappos uses the hardware equivalence to make software patentable
Henrion adds that according to “Kappos: [it] certainly does not discriminate against any model of software development so that the marketplace can decide” (really?).
“Kappos thinks patent trolls are OK,” Henrion writes, “companies that buy and assert patents are essentially market-making mechanisms” (he must be joking or he is very thick, but it’s likely that he is neither of those things).
“He is probably surrounded by persuasive lawyers, not truly practising staff — those who are busy making actual products, not writing patent applications.”As long as the USPTO is run by a bunch of lawyers with vested interests (like Kappos with his loyalty to a software patents supporter, IBM), all that this US government supports is a small set of mega-corporations sustaining law which is, by design, discriminatory towards the population at large (see the video below).
To end with a quote from Henrion, “Kappos: so I actually don’t see any sort of major change in the area of software patenting” (amazing nonchalance!). IBM could use some prodding and so could Kappos, who has a blog where people who read Techrights can speak to him very easily and directly, hopefully politely speaking some sense into his mind. He is probably surrounded by persuasive lawyers, not truly practising staff — those who are busy making actual products, not writing patent applications. We never insulted Mr. Kappos and in fact we supported his appointment at the time, falsely believing that this was the man who would bring positive change. He failed us all very, very badly.
Professor Lessig, a shrewd American who opposes maximalists of so-called “IP”, gave the following topical talk some days ago (TinyOgg will indefinitely terminate within 4 days, so we apologise for Flash-only video). █
Resumen: La postura de la Fundación Linux se asemeja a la de la OIN y Peer-to-Paten, lo que lo convierte en un peligro para el progreso REAL en la lucha contra las patentes de software.
La OIN (Open Invention Network) y la LF (Fundación Linux) son entidades estrechamente relacionadas, cuya posición en materia de patentes que escribimos hace unos años[http://techrights.org/2008/10/03/an-issue-of-patents/]. No ha cambiado mucho desde entonces, excepto que tenemos mucha más evidencia para validar y consolidar esta relación este año (el post anterior es de 2008).
Aquellos que han seguido este sitio por un tiempo probablemente saben que somos escépticos de la OIN, porque en lugar de abolir las patentes de software es la validación de una estrategia de conseguir más patentes de software para ‘anular’ las de los enemigos de GNU y Linux (más de el segundo). Peer-to-Patentes adopta un enfoque similar en espíritu. Acabamos de descubrir que Peer-to-patentes se puso en contacto[http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2011/06/p2p-aftermath.html] con los abogados de patentes. ¿Están perdiendo el tiempo de los estudiantes y la legitimación de las patentes? Lea lo siguiente en el blog de un abogado de patentes del Reino Unido basado en:
La semana pasada, Peer-to-Patentes (P2P) seminario, organizado por la IPKat y gentilmente acogido en e la acogedora azotea Olswang LLP en Holborn, se ha ido pero no olvidado. Por un lado, este blog es privilegio de contar con algunas notas de uno de los presentes, el Dr. Roger J Burt (un abogado de Patentes Europeas y Público con experiencia enorme de software relacionados con las patentes).
[...]
Hay una esperanza particular que los estudiantes universitarios, estudiantes de ciencias de todo equipo para el piloto actual, podrán participar y beneficiarse de aprender acerca del sistema de patentes y cómo funciona “.
¡Qué idea más tonta. En todo caso, los estudiantes británicos se les debe enseñar a rechazar el sistema de patentes y antagonizar las empresas que hacen lobby – cabildean – por las patentes de software. Estas empresas son enemigos de su potencial ocupación. Ellos están monopolizando el campo y la reducción del número de puestos de trabajo disponibles en la informática. Estábamos aún más triste ver a Jim Zemlin cerrar su última entrevista con la siguiente declaración:
Zemlin: Creo que se habla en torno a la reforma de patentes. Creo que todos en la industria tecnológica relacionada específicamente con el software le gustaría ver una norma más alta en términos de calidad de las patentes emitidas en torno al software ya que su falta de calidad lleva a una gran cantidad de litigios innecesarios.
El problema no es “la calidad de las patentes concedidas alrededor del software”, el problema es “las patentes concedidas alrededor del software”, ¿verdad? El jefe de la FFII (Fundación para una Infraestructura de Información Libre) interpreta esto como “Zemlin de LinuxFoundation partidario de swpats [las patentes de software]” y dado el enfoque la OIN, no es precisamente sorprendente. Tanto la OIN y la Fundación Linux es un poco como los grupos frente de los partidarios grandes de Linux, especialmente las grandes empresas que participen en el desarrollo de la kernel para su propio beneficio. Si el LF es un frente del los proponentes de las patentes de software como IBM[http://techrights.org/2009/08/12/ibm-promoting-software-patents/] e Intel[http://techrights.org/2011/06/13/intel-for-swpats/], entonces tenemos que reevaluar la forma que miramos a la LF posición con respecto a las patentes, no sólo la posición de la OIN (con la que nunca fuímos realmente compatibles, con algunas excepciones[http://techrights.org/2009/09/13/trolls-perspective-codeplex/]). IBM Rob Weir tweets[http://twitter.com/rcweir/statuses/83693436036849664] acerca de la falsa “reforma” de patentes[http://techrights.org/2011/06/20/algorithms-and-methods-as-monopoly/] que pasa por debajo de la nariz del veterano de IBM dirigido por la USPTO (Kappos):
Fascinante la reforma del Congreso debate proyecto de ley sobre patentes CSPAN .. Debaten el primero en inventar en vez del primero en archivar.
Esa no es lo que la reforma que debe centrarse. La gente quiere y necesita una verdadera reforma que impida que monopolios como IBM consigan la “propiedad” de los algoritmos. Recordemos que IBM e Intel – no sólo Microsoft – están detrás del empuje de las patentes de software en Nueva Zelanda[http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Software_Patents_in_New_Zealand] – un tema importante en este momento, porque con esta base los sitios web tratan de imponer su poder sobre los kiwis, por ejemplo, proclamando que “las críticas generalizadas de exclusión propuestas y directrices de examen[http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Software_Patents_in_New_Zealand]“. Esto es una falsedad absoluta. La única crítica que viene basada en los gigantes de los Estados Unidos, sus pocos socios en Nueva Zelanda, y como siempre los abogados de patentes. La población de Nueva Zelanda, con razón, re-examinia la idea de las patentes de software en este país. Para citar a la parte que es verdad:
El futuro de las patentes de software en Nueva Zelanda sigue en duda después de un rechazo casi unánime de la propuesta de excluir invenciones implementadas en ordenador de la patentabilidad de una consulta pública reciente.
Esperemos que se mantenga de esta manera. A los carteles de patentes le encantaría para validar sus monopolios en Nueva Zelanda, lo que a su vez pondría a los programadores basados en NZ en una posición de necesitar permiso de los EE.UU. para escribir sólo un simple y original software para el ordenador.
Las patentes de software no tienen sentido, pero hicieron un montón de dinero para aquellos que producen menos. Para insistir en el entierro de las patentes de software existentes (en los EE.UU.) no se necesista ser revolucionarios armados o rebeldes, es sólo lo única racional, progresiva cosa que hacer. Los desarrolladores como realmente suyo están siendo asaltado con sanciones para que los monopolistas pueden mejorar sus márgenes de ganancia. █
Summary: The stance of the Linux Foundation resembles that of the OIN and Peer-to-Patent, which makes it a peril to real progress in the fight against software patents
OIN and LF (Linux Foundation) are tightly related entities whose position on patents we wrote about a few years ago. Not much has changed since then, except that we have a lot more evidence to validate and solidify this relationship this year (the older post is from 2008).
Those who have followed this site for a while would probably know that we are sceptical of the OIN because rather than abolish software patents it is validating a strategy of getting more software patents to ‘cancel out’ those of enemies of GNU and Linux (more of the latter). Peer-to-Patent takes a similar approach in spirit. We have just found out that Peer-to-Patent liaised with patent lawyers. Are they wasting students’ time and legitimising patents? Read the following from a UK-based patent lawyers’ blog:
Last week’s Peer-to-Patent (P2P) seminar, organised by the IPKat and kindly hosted in Olswang LLP’s cosy rooftop nest in Holborn, is gone but not forgotten. For one thing, this blog is privileged to have some notes from one of those present, Dr Roger J Burt (a European and Chartered Patent Attorney with huge experience of software-related patents).
[...]
There is a particular hope that university students, particularly computer science students for the present pilot, may take part and benefit from learning about the patent system and how it works”.
What a silly idea. If anything, British students need to be taught to reject the patent system and antagonise companies that lobby for software patents. These companies are enemies of their prospective occupation. They are monopolising the field and reducing the number of available jobs in computer science. We were even more saddened to see Jim Zemlin closing his latest interview with the following brow-raising statement:
Zemlin: I think we were speaking around patent reform. I think everyone in the tech industry related specifically to software would like to see a higher bar in terms of quality for patents issued around software because the lack of quality leads to a lot of needless litigation.
The problem is not “quality for patents issued around software”, the problem is “patents issued around software,” right? The head of the FFII interprets this as “Zemlin of LinuxFoundation a supporter of swpats [software patents]” and given the OIN’s approach, it is not exactly shocking. Both the OIN and the Linux Foundation are a bit like front groups for large supporters of Linux, especially the big companies that engage in kernel development for their own benefit. If the LF is a front to software patents proponents like IBM and like Intel, then we need to reassess our take on the LF’s position regarding patents, not just the OIN’s position (which we never truly supported, with exceptions). IBM’s Rob Weir tweets about fake patent 'reform' which goes under the nose of the IBM veteran-led USPTO (Kappos):
Fascinating congressional patent reform bill debate on CSPAN.. Debating first-to-invent versus first-to-file
That’s not the reform we should focus on. The real reform people want and need would stop monopolies like IBM from getting ‘ownership’ of algorithms. Let us remember that IBM and Intel — not just Microsoft — are behind the push for software patents in NZ — an important subject at this moment because US-based Web sites try to impose their power upon the kiwis, e.g. by claiming “widespread criticism of proposed exclusion and examination guidelines”. This is an utter falsehood. The only criticism comes from US-based giants, their few partners in NZ, and patent lawyers. The population of NZ rightly retests the idea of software patents in this country. To quote the part that is true:
The future of software patents in New Zealand remains in doubt following an almost unanimous rejection of a proposal to exclude computer-implemented inventions from patentability in a recent public consultation.
Let us hope it stays this way. Patent cartels would just love to validate their monopolies in NZ, which would in turn put NZ-based programmers in a position of needing permission from the US to just write simple computer software, however original.
Software patents never made sense, but they made a lot of money for those who produce the least. To insist on the burial of existing software patents (in the US) is not to be armed revolutionists or rebels; it’s just the only rational, progressive thing to do. Developers like yours truly are being assaulted with sanctions so that monopolists can improve their profit margins. █
Resumen: Las noticias sugirien que IBM está mayormente entre los que trajeron el Intercambio de Patentes a Europa.
IBM es una empresa sobre las que tenemos sentimientos ambivalentes. Por un lado, IBM ayuda a que el fenómeno del software libre (abarcándolo más bien de atacarlo), pero por otra parte, IBM sigue siendo una empresa de software propietario en su núcleo y por lo tanto, aboga por políticas que entran en conflicto con una mentalidad/doctrina de software libre. No es ningún secreto que IBM prefiere mantener las patentes de software[http://techrights.org/2009/08/12/ibm-promoting-software-patents/] y su estrategia para defender el software libre en el proceso abarca sólo el software que IBM depende. OIN (Invención de Red Abierta) y RPX[http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/RPX], por ejemplo, no hacen más que legitimar el sistema al mismo tiempo tratar de la reforma en algunos aspectos (la disuasión demandas), especialmente en formas que son beneficiosas para IBM y sus aliados. En la superficie, esto puede parecer bien. OIN hace que el deteriorado sistema actual de un poco menos letal. Sin embargo, distrae la atención de una mejor y permanente solucion al problema en cuestión. En particular, la OIN hace casi nada para destacar los problemas fundamentales con las patentes de software. Una mirada a sus partidarios muestra por qué.
Recientemente escribimos sobre una iniciativa cuyo impacto es muy similar[http://techrights.org/2011/06/01/patent-mopolies-in-the-eu_es/]. El problema es que ahora esta iniciativa va más allá a Australia y el Reino Unido, que podría, a su vez, ayudar a validar algunas patentes allí. Para citar el presidente de la FFII (Fundación para una Infraestructura de Información Libre)[http://twitter.com/zoobab/statuses/76318976887619584]:
IBM validaría sus patentes de software a través de la Peer2Patent en el Reino Unido:
El punto de enfoque del Intercambio de Patentes está en cierto modo empeorando las cosas. Toma patentes que ya pueden ser dudosa y luego se extiende a los demás a despedir a uno o reforzarlas. Esto es lo que una publicación pro-patentes[http://www.managingip.com/Article/2840709/Managing-Patents-Archive/IBM-prominent-in-peer-to-patent-pilot.html] escribe sobre este tema:
Las primeras 20 solicitudes de patentes en la salida a bolsa del Reino Unido piloto de Intercambio de Patentes se han publicado en línea
Ahora es el momento de voluntarios para regar jardín o cosecharlas para aquellos de la talla de IBM, ¿eh? Bueno, citando este informe[http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/patent-site-broadens-public-access-to-review-process-30819], el presidente de la FFII señala[http://twitter.com/zoobab/statuses/76321802871255040] que:
Las solicitudes de patentes concedidas después de usar el sitio web de revisión intercambio de patentes será potencialmente más fuertes.
Nosotros explicamos nuestros puntos de vista[http://techrights.org/2011/05/25/peer-to-patent-in-the-uk/] sobre el tema muchas veces antes. APOYE A LA FFII, NO AL ENFOQUE de Intercambio de Patentes. La solución al problema de patentes depende de los intereses creados; para IBM, las “malas” patentes son el problema. Para Microsoft, las patentes “anti-Microsoft” son el problema. Para la gran mayoría de la gente, TODAS las patentes de software (tal vez las patentes en general, dependiendo de la zona/país) son un problema. █
Summary: The Register is manipulating people’s headlines to say stuff like “wake up, Linux hippies”; an article from Timothy Prickett Morgan is suspect too
IT IS rare and it is hard to ever see Groklaw criticising IBM. As we explained last week, the PR people from IBM try to ‘groom’ bloggers so that they report in IBM’s favour. But it is also true that IBM is being targeted by Microsoft proxies, so surely we can sympathise. As Pamela Jones put it the other day, when it comes to IBM being sued or pursued by regulators, as soon as you know who the attacker or “business is being backed by, and then you’re more likely get the story right.”
“But will the FUD cloud that just happens to surround all Microsoft competitors go away, or will another stupid lawsuit get filed, so articles like this can make ugly headlines?” –Pemela Jones, GroklawSadly, however, Jones links to a Linux champion, Timothy Prickett Morgan, whose articles we have enjoyed for a long time. She complains about the headline, perhaps not realising that The Register modifies writers’ headlines spurioudly (e.g. Asay’s to say “wake up, Linux hippies,” which he told me was not his headline). Anyway, IBM tried to push its into the story by contacting me and many others, saying I should not mention they did. It’s a tad shameful and it betrays journalists who are honest. It’s a negative aspect of IBM. Well, IBM does other negative things and Simon Phipps had interesting things to say about the Apache Foundation news. IBM makes proprietary software from it, so this was good for IBM.
Here is what Jones called an “ugly headline” when she quoted “IBM guns down Neon’s mainframe accelerator in Texas”. Jones’ full comment (in context) was as follows: “But will the FUD cloud that just happens to surround all Microsoft competitors go away, or will another stupid lawsuit get filed, so articles like this can make ugly headlines? I don’t know why journalists love to write about litigation against large companies, siding with the “underdog”, as here, but it makes it easy for anyone wanting to smear a competitor, just by getting a small proxy to bring the litigation, a la SCO, powered by Microsoft money. Look how that turned out. Were all the articles that plastered our screens in the beginning of that litigation accurate, all about IBM being in trouble and Linux doomed? How about the mainframe FUD? IBM so far wins every battle, and that ought to tell journalists something the next time a proxy shows up claiming that big bad company X or Y is being mean to little competing business. Look for who the little business is being backed by, and then you’re more likely get the story right.” Microsoft had signed a deal with The Register before the publication went downhill [1, 2, 3. █
What Europe needs is not what the United States needs
Summary: News suggesting that IBM is majorly among those who brought Peer to Patent to Europe
IBM is a company which we have ambivalent feelings about. On the one hand, IBM helps the Free software phenomenon (embracing it rather than attacking it), but on the other hand, IBM is still a proprietary software company at its core and therefore it advocates for policies which conflict with a Free software mentality/doctrine. It is no secret that IBM prefers to keep software patents and its strategy for defending Free software in the process mostly covers software that IBM depends on. OIN and RPX, for example, do nothing but legitimise the system while also trying to reform it in some ways (lawsuits deterrence), especially in ways that are beneficial to IBM and its allies. On the surface, this may seem fine. OIN makes the current broken system a little less lethal. However, it does distract from much better and more permanent solutions to the problem at hand. Notably, the OIN does nearly nothing to highlight the fundamental problems with software patents. A glance at its backers shows why.
Recently we wrote about an initiative whose impact is largely similar. The problem is, this initiative now goes further into Australia and the United Kingdom which might, in turn, help validate some patents there. To quote the FFII’s president::
IBM to validate its software patents through the Peer2Patent in the UK:
The peer-to-patent approach is in some ways making matters worse. It takes patents that may already be dubious and then it reaches out for others to either dismiss or reinforce them. Here is what a pro-patents publication writes about this subject:
The first 20 patent applications in the UK IPO’s peer-to-patent pilot have been posted online
Now it is time for volunteers to garden or groom them for the likes of IBM, eh? Well, citing this report, the FFII’s president points out that:
Patent applications granted after using the Peer To Patent website review will be potentially stronger
We explained our views on the subject many times before. Support the FFII, not the Peer To Patent approach. The solution to the patent problem depends on the vested interests; to IBM, “bad” patents are the problem. To Microsoft, “anti-Microsoft” patents are the problem. For the vast majority of people, all software patents (maybe patents in general, depending on the area/country) are a problem.
