Beta
×

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!

Comments

top

Red Hat Patenting Around Open Standards

ites Re:GPL a pretty good shield. (147 comments)

This is not a question of preventing patent trolls from patenting the same thing.

Firstly, because AMQP has hundreds or thousands of areas that could be similarly patented: failover, federation, many types of exchange, remote administration, etc. It only takes one patent to hold the whole standard to ransom. Red Hat would have to patent every single technical aspect of the standard, which would be impossible in practical terms.

Secondly, because there are much cheaper ways of stopping patent trolls from patenting obvious things: publish them, register them as prior art at the USPTO.

It's naive to think that the only way patents are used is to 'go after' projects. 99% of the time, patents of this sort are used in discrete discussions with potential clients. "You know, we hold a patent on that... (hint hint)". This is enough to scare the customer into at least not using a rival product, open source or not. Indeed, patents that make it to court tend to die rather faster than patents used under the table.

The irony of this patent is that technically, it's not that interesting. Dynamic message routing on XML is not difficult, but not efficient. It's much faster to pre-calculate routing keys and indices, as the existing AMQP exchanges do.

So I think Red Hat are simply playing the game of collecting software patents like points.

However, I really expected better from Red Hat.

more than 5 years ago
top

Red Hat Patenting Around Open Standards

ites Re:I Believe in Trolls (147 comments)

It's pretty difficult to see this story as representative of a legitimate concern, at least of any informed person. Among all of the major distributions of Linux, Red Hat is probably the most Free Software oriented (except perhaps for Debian). As a member of OIN, they contribute patents licensed to other members in order to create a defence against patent lawsuits. They've repeatedly and consistently put their money into Free Software by purchasing desirable products and re-licensing them under the GPL. They're one of the largest contributors of code to the Linux kernel, GNU libc, gcc, GNOME, and other core components of GNU/Linux distributions.

And after all of that, the very notion of Red Hat suiting up to sue Free Software developers is completely ridiculous, because doing so would void their license to distribute the software.

This article is just another troll painting one of the Free Software community's leaders in an undeserved poor light. Whether the author is completely ignorant of the subject matter, or is intentionally trolling, this story deserves a place in the dust bin.

All patenting around open standards is a concern, both to developers of the standards, and users. A patent holder's intentions may, and often do, change over the course of the 20 years the patent may exist.

In this case, Red Hat seem to be seeking "ownership" of areas around the standard. They don't need to sue anyone to establish this, that is a straw man. The simple fact of owning patents is enough to scare potential customers away from competitors.

I've personally worked with Red Hat in fighting software patents in Europe but would not consider this story to be a troll. Any FOSS firm that is willing to spend money on patents, but not the fight against software patents (and I can tell you that to the best of my knowledge RHAT are not funding the main European groups against software patents), is working the wrong side.

So this story seems relevant if only to highlight how behaviour changes when money is involved.

When Red Hat seek software patents around an open standard, that's news.

more than 5 years ago
top

Red Hat patenting around open standards

ites Patenting open standards = evil (2 comments)

This makes me really, really furious. Patents on open standards are evil, just a way of taxing those who make products on those open standards. I happen to know the background to AMQP really well. Most of what Red Hat has contributed is utter crap (read the 0-10 spec to get an idea of how poor!) The real work is done by others. Yet Red Hat want to claim patents on extensions of AMQP that should be standardised. Why? So they can collar clients and say, "we own the patents, buy our licenses or we'll sue you." Just like any common or garden patent troll.

I'm boycotting Red Hat as long as they pull stunts like this, and advising my clients and partners to do the same. Firms that deliberately create patent thickets around open standards do not deserve to get support from the FOSS community.

It's not Red Hat's Novell moment, it's their Unisys moment. Remember GIF? Remember Unisys's attempts afterwards to build a FOSS business?

more than 5 years ago

Submissions

ites hasn't submitted any stories.

Journals

top

Patents vs. the Independent Inventor

ites ites writes  |  more than 9 years ago

In July, the European Parliament will vote on a proposal entitled the "Computer Implemented Inventions Directive". Unless a clear majority of all MEPs - 367 of them - vote against the proposal, software patents will become law in Europe.

Who cares? What does it matter? Those who want to introduce software patents into Europe present them as a "protection for the independent inventor" and "essential to progress in the field". As an independent inventor, I hold a different opinion. I find these descriptions deceitful. Software patents are a loaded gun held by giant established software companies - who I call Big Software - and aimed at the independent inventor. Software patents will kill free and fair competition in the IT industry and the effects will be felt far and wide in our daily lives.

These are forceful statements, so I will explain.

Computer programs are defined as "literary works" by the Berne Convention. Copyright protects the expression - the code - of such a work. Copyright is automatic and costs nothing. The poorest artist is protected against theft of his or her work. The software industry has, since the age of personal computers and the Internet, grown very significantly, under the protection of copyright, and many major business have been started in garages, protected by copyright law.

Patents are quite different. They are a state-granted monopoly on an invention, or more generally, a process, or idea. They are expensive (about 10,000 Euro to apply for a patent, much more to defend it). A patent grants the holder an exclusive right to an idea. Yes, ideas can become private property.

I am a software writer - a programmer - and I own an independent software business. We do a large amount of research. We have invented many valuable ideas and technologies. We are, like many other small teams, one of those motors of innovation that created the dot-com era. And now we can patent our ideas, get monopolies on our inventions, the fruit of lifetimes of work.

Am I ecstatic? No, I'm not. On the contrary, I believe that in perhaps five years, by 2010, I will have to sell or close my business. Software patents are so dangerous that just writing and selling software may, by the time today's Computer Science students start their own businesses, be impossible and de-facto illegal.

Dangerous? Yes, to the independent inventor. And I'll explain why. Imagine our small team - 3 or four people - working for a year to build a new software product. It is a major and risky investment. We believe the product has an excellent market; we compete with large, very expensive products, but we do it much better, and the software is very low cost because we work using modern techniques. We are doing something essential to any healthy market: we are competing.

Now, under copyright laws, our product, being an entirely original expression, is protected. We work, we invent, we may sell the results and hope to profit.

But under software patent laws, our product, being the combination of tens of thousands of ideas, old and new, is in probable violation of someone's monopoly.

There is simply no other way to write software, any more than a musician can write a song using only original chords. We cannot know what patents we are infringing until we have finished our work, started to sell it, and someone sues us.

  • We cannot discover what patents apply. There are over a hundred thousand software patents in the US, described in complex legal language. New patents are usually secret for 18 months, about the time it takes to design, build, and market a new software product.
  • We cannot be sure to avoid using patented ideas, which are often very broad. Imagine if I patented "method of playing music in a room where drinks are served", or "using a pigment-filled stick to make marks on paper", or "method of applying heat to foodstuffs in order to modify or enhance their flavour". This is the level of many software patents.
  • We cannot be sure to license patents, if we discover that we have infringed on them. A patent holder may agree to license, or may not. They may simply demand that we stop selling our product. Worse, many software patents duplicate each other. Licensing one patent provides no guarantee of protection from others.
  • We might try to overturn an obviously weak software patent in court. We would have to find money to pay our lawyers, and we would risk everything - bankruptcy - if we lost. You might think there is insurance against this kind of thing? No, insurance companies do not cover patent disputes.
  • We might seek our own patents. Apart from the cost of gaining and defending a patent, holding patents would make us a visible target for companies with broad "enabling patents". Small companies are easily intimidated into giving up their patents.
  • We could wait until the relevant patents expire. This takes up to twenty years. That is the time I've been working in data processing. Yes, I could write software without using any ideas from the last 20 years. But I doubt whether it would be very competitive, or find many customers.

So why is data processing so different from any other industry? Surely if software patents are so bad, they would not be tolerated in other sectors? Well, some people argue that they are bad in other sectors too. Should the patent offices allow patents on such things as human genes? But there are big differences between data processing and a physical domain like chemistry, engineering, or pharmaceuticals.

When we write a software program we draw from a vast living culture of ideas, techniques, and methods. We combine these, refine them, invent new ones. It is much like writing music, or writing prose. Without access to this rich culture of ideas, we simply cannot write new software. Indeed, economic theorists believe that the ease with which people can exchange ideas is a key factor of the efficiency of an economy. The boom in software technology during the last two decades has been driven by ever-cheaper ways to exchange ideas (email, the Internet).

Secondly, compared to a physical process, software development is very much a step-by-step process. Software invention is the work of hundreds of minds working over decades to accumulate new and better ways of solving particular problems. There are no sudden breakthroughs, no secret laboratory discoveries, and no mad scientists. Software is part of a cultural river. Every idea we use took 30 or 40 years to develop and mature. You see why "owning" such ideas is such an abhorrent concept to those who actually contribute to this cultural river.

To write software costs almost nothing except time. A team of five can build a product with millions of pieces - as complex as an Airbus - in just a year. Across Europe, hundreds of teams like ours keep pushing the boundaries of the possible. We are independent, we have no political power, we do not make the headlines. But we are the ones that keep this industry - and the economy that depends on it - alive and healthy.

What does Big Software think about software patents? Well, it really likes them. Software patents have only advantages for large companies. And Big Software is acquiring patents as fast as it can. IBM alone has over 10,000 software patents.

What does Big Software do with its huge patent portfolios? Some companies like to collect royalties. Anyone making software inevitably infringes on a dossier full of IBM patents. If you also have a fat patent portfolio, you can trade. If you don't you can pay a royalty. IBM usually ask for 3% of revenue. Of course, this won't protect you from other claims. Other firms use their patent portfolios to blackmail smaller firms into "collaboration".

And what do small or medium-sized firms do when asked to "collaborate"? They do what any sensible person would do when a large, loaded gun is pointed at their head. Hand over the goods and pray to stay alive. So software patents do not protect the independent inventor. They are however a useful tool for established businesses to bully, extort, and bankrupt their smaller rivals.

You may ask, if the situation is so bad, why is there no crisis in the US? To some extent US companies are still accumulating patents, the US patent and trademark office (USPTO) acting as an arms dealer for a war that is not quite here yet. But the economic friction of software patents is starting to worry some. As Gary L. Reback wrote for Forbes:

"Within the past five or six years, economists in particular have started to question the USPTO's practices, finding little correlation, if any, between patent proliferation and invention. Economists have identified many situations in which patents actually retard the introduction of new products."

Who actually wants software patents in Europe? Who is pushing the EU Council to bend and break their own rules in order to pass a text that the EU Parliament has already explicitly rejected?

Big Software, obviously. Big Software faces aggressive competition from a new breed of software - so-called free software, or open source - which can't be beaten by the usual methods. Free software evolves faster, is more modern, and generally better and cheaper than the stuff Big Software sells. The convicted monopolist Microsoft, especially, has tried every possible tactic to stop products like Linux from becoming wide-spread. Software patents are one of the final weapons in a fight for control of the future of the industry.

Big Software is represented by groups like the BSA (Business Software Alliance) which claim to speak for small and medium-sized software firms, but are actually sponsored by firms such as Microsoft, IBM, Sun, Oracle, and Cisco.

Secondly, we have the European Patent Office. The EPO expects a huge increase in revenue, power, and influence if software patents become reality. The US model already shows what is possible: the USPTO is the only government agency to make a profit, and it does so with open joy, ignoring the long term costs of the patent boom it has allowed. The lucrative business of granting patents has corrupted the USPTO and EPO.

Lastly, we have the patent industry. I don't need to explain why European patent lawyers are practically dancing in the streets - if lawyers ever dance - at the thought of the 30,000 software patents that the EPO has illegally granted and now hopes to see activated, and the lawsuits these will provoke.

When we look honestly at which parties call for software patents in Europe, we see those who do not want a free and competitive market. We see the monopolists, the lawyers, and the functionaries. We the inventors hate software patents because they make us slaves. The produce of an invested lifetime no longer belongs to us. Somewhere, with the collusion of a corrupt bureaucracy, a patent lawyer buys the "rights" to an idea, and owns us as surely as if we were shackled in iron and sold.

The European Council has been in a struggle with the European Parliament over this issue since 2002. The Council has used questionable and undemocratic tactics to push through its US-inspired vision of "patent everything". We are today at a crisis point: the vote in July is the last chance the Parliament has to reject the proposal.

Who will pay if this proposal becomes law?

European businesses will pay. Consider a large tax on all software. Increasing prices, less innovation, fewer suppliers, worse service. Imagine the end of independent businesses providing software services. You want someone to fix your database? Please call the Business Software Alliance and pay for an "approved consultant". Think of the excellent service that monopolists offer. Think of the old state telecoms giants, their high prices and waiting lists. This is what will eventually happen to IT if software patents become law in Europe.

European consumers will pay. Everything will cost more as businesses find they have to pay more for their data processing infrastructure. Over the years, technology will stagnate so that we find ourselves stuck in the past compared to countries with no patents on software. Imagine no Internet. No email, no mobile phones, no e-anything. Imagine trying to work with 20 year-old ideas and technology. Imagine 1985.

Free and fair competition in the technology sector is one of the major engines for economic growth.

Software patents are truly anti-competitive devices. It is contemptible that Europe, which has made such strides in promoting free and fair competition, should be on the verge of handing its vigorous independent software industry into the cadaverous clutches of corporate oligarchs.

This issue affects us all.

top

PacMan & Ghosts

ites ites writes  |  more than 9 years ago

So it looks like this... Microsoft is PacMan, gobbling up the software patent dots, one by one. Paying off its lawsuits, one by one. Bribing its antagonists, one by one. Enough software patents, enough dropped anti-trust cases, enough settlements, and it'll be able to stand up to IBM, and maybe even castrate Linux.

But there are ghosts chasing PacMan. A year ago, under a different Slashdot alias, I wrote about the impending disaster called "spyware". Then, there was an estimate of 10-15% infestation of domestic Windows PCs. Today, the estimate is 80% and it's a fair bet that by this time next year, most Windows PCs - behind a firewall or not - will be infected by spyware, trojans, worms.

The ghosts are unstoppable. Visit one web site and 15-30 of them pile into your PC. Ghosts like CWS are so... incredibly malign. No simple viruses, these. Extraordinarily invasive, they get into every corner of the Windows OS, dozens, hundreds of hooks. In 12 months, it'll be the rule, not the exception, as more and more of the over-complex and under-protected Internet infrastructure gets subverted by the dark side of the force, turned into payload-delivery agents. How do you know that page you're reading isn't silently exploiting a new exploit in MSIE? Answer: you don't, and eventually, so long as you're on Windows, it probably is.

Someone, somewhere, wants control of your Windows PC, and they are going to get it. "Windows Security" has turned into a sick joke.

Today's ghosts are in the "hot" phase of a parasitical life-cycle. That is, they take as much of the host's resources as they can, eventually killing it. At some stage, the ghosts will adapt, simply because a dead host is not much use. Later, they will start to compete, fighting each other. Much later, they will start to actively defend their hosts, turning the cycle around from deadly parasite to essential partner. This is how all immune systems develop. It's not an organic process, simply an economic one.

Meanwhile Microsoft chases its little dots...

There are several possible end-games here. One: Microsoft manages to create new markets where it can make new money and leave its crippled and rotting domestic market. Ha! Two: the ghosts catch up. Three: the ghosts adapt and learn to co-exist as the price for having an ecosystem to inhabit. Might take... 10-15 years.

My money is on scenario two. And faster than you'd expect. We're about 1 year from what could be considered "plague" for most Windows users. Microsoft will not survive that unscathed.

top

The Global Protection Racket

ites ites writes  |  about 10 years ago

It hit me a few days ago. We all know that politicians are a little corrupt. But the vision of Bush swaggering like a little mobster, the poison put out by the Republican machine, the utter inability of the Dems to defend against these attacks...

It's not just the most dirty campaign ever seen. What we're seeing is a full-blown attack on US civil society by a group of men who resemble nothing as much a well-organized criminal gang.

it's always about the money, isn't it? But in the past we've expected our governments to respect civil society. After all, it's more lucrative to take the long view. Let people build up their businesses, and tax them only as much as they will bear.

The governments of the US, Russia, and Italy resemble each other so much it's uncanny. They seem to be working from the same handbook.

Control the press. Destroy the opposition. Stuff the judiciary with your friends. Turn parliament into a tool for executive control. Turn politics into a tool for doing business. Use fear to prevent dissent, use the mass media as a political tool.

Some people have asked why the US elite would go so far. After all, they have done very well so far with a less harsh rule. Why bring in the guns now? Why demolish the democratic institutions? Is it just for the money? Admittedly, the sums are huge. More money has been diverted by the Iraq war than was ever stolen by a corrupt regime in Nigeria or Angola.

Perhaps it's just greed. That's explanation number 1.

Explanation number 2 is a bit extreme: it is that we are heading for the collapse of oil reserves and that the liberty and freedom that the abundance of oil allowed is no longer affordable. When oil prices rise to $250 a barrel, we really don't want riots disturbing the peace.

Explanation number 2 is bolsted by the curious way that every major war is being fought in regions where oil is or may be present. The Caucuses. Iraq. Sudan. Venezuela is in turmoil. Angola and Nigeria are calm but the oil industry there is firmly under control of the US. (And, people may remark, the political pressure for reform in those countries is remarkably absent. Angola has seen many, many more people die than Iraq. Where is the liberating force?)

But explanation number 2 has one flaw: it assumes that our leaders are good planners, capable of thinking ahead and plotting the future.

That does simply not make sense. Personally... it has to be the first. Our world is run by a cabal of old, venal, grasping, corrupt, vicious, and ruthless men who are so hell-bent on robbing the treasury in any way they can that they have forgotten how the money got there.

The sad truth is that they will probably get away with it. People do, finally, do what they're told. We are not a race of revolutionaries. Most stories of revolt and the fight for freedom are lies told to encourage people to follow the party line.

I expect that the Republican machine will keep control of the US government. They are very, very good at the political game, willing to do whatever it takes to win. The opposition - built on a middle class that believes in the stength of morality, and a lower class that has the stength only to try to survive from day to day - is unable and unwilling to fight. We saw this with Gore in 2000. We are seeing it in spades now.

It's an old story. In Germany in 1931, the communists and democrats were no match for the brown shirts.

The story has a classic plot. Under the guise of an external threat, we elect a strong man. The liberals and communists complain. We beat them up. They fight back. We break their heads. We vote for our leader. He will protect us from the scary monsters. Once secure in power he demolishes the civil society that elected him. He creates a machine that has one goal only: to find and eliminate opposition, independent thought, and resistance.

We've seen it in so many countries, many with long and proud histories of democracy.

I'll finish with this thought: for once, the USA is not leading the world. Russia is about 4 years ahead of the USA when it comes to installing a dictatorship. What happens in Moscow today will happen in Washington in 2008. Observe Putin and you see Bush. Observe Chechnya and you see... you see that the "War on Terror" is simply another name for "Genocide".

-- ites

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?