Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

FOSS Communities Key To Managing Patent Risk

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the with-many-eyes-all-bogus-patents-are-shallow dept.

Patents 29

dp619 writes "Penn State law professor Clark Asay has written an editorial on F/OSS patent risk, saying, '...under the current patent system, it's entirely possible to obtain a patent that reads on software that FOSS communities independently create. Consequently, FOSS communities and their users are vulnerable to third party patent claims, even absent any sort of wrongdoing or copying on their part.' He suggests that developers collaborate to prevent bad or frivolous patents from being issued in the first place. The ongoing work of Linux Defenders and Peer-to-Patent are cited as good examples of how the FOSS community's collaborative spirit can help it counteract potential legal threats."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


too complex (2)

masternerdguy (2468142) | about a year ago | (#43020097)

Can't we just let patents autoexpire every 5 - 10 years so we don't have these issues? It works great in medicine because it gives big pharma a chance to make money innovating and then the copy cats can produce generics and make their own profits, forcing big pharma to keep innovating. Fast expiring patents are a great idea there, why not in software?

Re:too complex (1)

r1348 (2567295) | about a year ago | (#43020441)

5 - 10 years is ages in IT. By the time they expire, they're obsolete.

Re:too complex (1)

masternerdguy (2468142) | about a year ago | (#43020483)

5-10 years and Windows XP, Java 1.4, and VB6 are in the clear. You honestly wouldn't want to take a peek at how those are constructed?

Re:too complex (1)

r1348 (2567295) | about a year ago | (#43020889)

Honestly, no. The product might still be used, but the technology is obsolete.
It might be interesting for learning purposes, but for those trying to create innovative software (those who need patents), they're hardly relevant.

Re:too complex (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43020913)

but for those trying to create innovative software (those who need patents), they're hardly relevant.

And this is the attitude which has lead so many of these "innovative" creators to poorly reinvent the wheel every 5-10 years.

Re:too complex (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43020971)

You're confusing copyrights with patents.

Re:too complex (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43021027)

No, I'm not. My statement has nothing to do with copyrights or patents. I'm talking about idiots who think that anything older than 5-10 years is "obsolete" so we have the supposed "innovative" people poorly reimplement old technology. And they do so over and over again.

Re:too complex (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year ago | (#43022839)

When XP was released the average PC was a single core 600MHz P3 with 128MB of RAM if you were lucky and a hard drive that was MAYBE 20GB, I saw plenty in the 5GB-10GB range back then. Frankly people can bitch about MSFT being douchebags or the current CEO is a retard (completely agree on the latter BTW) but the fact that they were able to get XP to run on modern hardware so much more advanced than what it was designed for is frankly a miracle.

But NO I would NOT like the code handed out when MSFT is done with it, see Android which is well on its way to a million infections. Windows 98 didn't totally drop off the radar until around 07, you can bet your last buck XP will still have virus worthy numbers in 2015, and handing out source to a target with a huge userbase is just asking for it. Android shows that having the source doesn't magically protect you, handing out the XP source would be suicidal...unless of course you want MSFT to pick up a ton of users for Win 8 as they run from the virus exploding XP.

Re:too complex (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43023095)

The security problems in Android are not bugs, but features. The Android system has had exceptionally few security holes in it. The problem arises when the applications ask for permissions, and the user doesn't understand what he's allowing them to do. If you give an application access to the Internet and the SD card, nothing prevents the application from using them. This works well for more experienced users, but a better system is required for non-experienced users.

Re:too complex (1)

Desler (1608317) | about a year ago | (#43020967)

That's funny because many of the technologies that still underly most "modern" OS kernels, file systems, etc. are many times older than the 5-10 years you claim for something to be obsolete.

Re:too complex (1)

ozmanjusri (601766) | about a year ago | (#43021001)

Can't we just let patents autoexpire every 5 - 10 years

It's probably too late for that.

The whole system is being so extensively gamed that it's pretty much unsalvageable in its current incarnation. Recently, even the Chinese government and businesses have noticed the opportunities it creates and have started a huge junk-patenting effort, so its only going to get worse.

A Chinese government scheme providing financial incentives for small and medium sized enterprises, public institutions or scientific research institutions appears to be resulting in abuse of the Australian patent system, and the 'dumping' of numerous low-quality innovation patents on the Australian Register.

http://blog.patentology.com.au/2013/02/junk-patents-dumped-on-australia-as.html [patentology.com.au]

Re:too complex (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43024221)

5-10 years might be plenty of time for computer patents, but it takes 5-10 years and many millions of dollars to get new drugs to market, shortening the patent length for pharma will result in very few new drugs being developed.

It's sad patents do the opposite of their design (1)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | about a year ago | (#43020113)

Patents are supposed to protect the little guy so he can get to market. But they're used to bully the little guy from ever getting a foot hold.

Re:It's sad patents do the opposite of their desig (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43020161)

Jesus, what the fuck are you on about on that webpage? Hearing voices in your head isn't usually "good news".

Re:It's sad patents do the opposite of their desig (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43020203)

Patents are supposed to protect the little guy so he can get to market.

That's not why patents exist. It's never been why patents have existed.

Re:It's sad patents do the opposite of their desig (1)

masternerdguy (2468142) | about a year ago | (#43020223)

No, patents protect the innovator so they can get their product to market without copy cats devaluing their research.

Headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43020123)

I am still trying to figure out what the headline means - why cn't headlines be written better?

Iam sure that the patent on Risk ran out long ago.

why not just submit more patents? (2)

mug funky (910186) | about a year ago | (#43020221)

you could modify git to send commit messages to the USPTO...

if you can't beat them, subvert their system. if every patent is one that can be freely used, then problem solved! software patents would become useless because they'd all be free.

Patent idea (1)

t0mek (2799307) | about a year ago | (#43020275)

Herby I patent the method of creating patent applications *on a computer*. It's novel and non obvious by the existing standards (noticed the "on the computer" part, right?) and it should at least slow the other ridiculous patent applications down. A clear win-win!

Re:Patent idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43020323)

Hurr hurr.

FriSt st@op... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43020955)

is 3ying.THings

Almost a complete non-issue in practice (2)

Grond (15515) | about a year ago | (#43021139)

While for-profit companies that use and develop free and open source software have been sued for patent infringement, "FOSS communities" essentially never have been. The author is correct that "FOSS communities have fretted over this risk for years," but that's just it: they have fretted and nothing has come of it.

"Patent trolls" want licensing revenue. You can't squeeze blood from a turnip, so suing an open source project directly is a pointless waste of money. A proprietary competitor may only be interested in excluding an open source project from the market, but even that is effectively impossible. For example, consider the efforts to get rid of DeCSS and its progeny. That was about copyright, not patents, but the point is that a) you can't remove something from the internet and b) a project can always move to another country with more favorable laws. Patents are territorial: if a company sues a project in country A, the project can just move to country B, where the company doesn't have a patent.

code-digging to prevent patent infrigement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43022913)

Dig up 20-year old code and re-use it.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account