Kelton <kelton@xxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> Mark Kent wrote:
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> A company turns the Microsoft-Novell case into an open source business model
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> | Everybody seems to agree that software patents are bad: because of patent
>>> | trolls, because the patent system is broken and overwhelmed or because they
>>> | threaten FOSS. In short, people don?t want to pay for Linux.
>>> |
>>> | Yet even pro-open-source companies are making this argument that they have to
>>> | build a patent portfolio so that to be able to defend themselves, just in
>>> | case. Hey, even open source communities have adopted this ?I?m forced too?
>>> | stance.
>>> |
>>> | Therefore it was only a matter of time before an open source company decides
>>> | patents could be used to solidify open source dual-licensing schemes. Imagine
>>> | the deal between Microsoft and Novell erected into a widespread open source
>>> | dual-licensing scheme. Scary.
>
> As I'm certain you can determine by reading my posts in this
> news group, I have no technical training in computers. I also
> have no education beyond a high school diploma. So this may
> be a stupid question. It may also seem off-topic for this
> news group, but since I thought of the question solely based
> on posts in this news group, I thought that I would return a
> favor that has been done for me in this news group by posting
> it here:
>
> If open-source and pro-open-source companies apply for and
> receive software patents for their software (ostensibly to
> defend themselves in 'patent wars' that are initiated by
> closed-source, proprietary software companies), doesn't that
> introduce the danger that the open-source and pro-open-source
> companies can be bought by closed-source companies (and then
> their open-source patents belong to the closed-source
> companies that bought them)?
In so far as software patents are valid, then I'd say that your
answer would be a "yes". The reason why the patent commons project
was kicked-off some time ago (I think IBM lead it?) was to ensure that
patents would be held as "royalty-free". I'm not a patent attorney, so
I do not know if it could be possible to change the status of a patent
after making it RF.
A secondary issue is that software patents are not valid outside of
Nafta and Australia anyway, and even /within/ Nafta, it's questionable
as to how valid they really are, as they are being dressed as "business
methods" in order to squeeze them through the USPTO.
>
> Now comes another question:
>
> If the answer to the preceding question is 'Yes',
> what damage will be done to the 'open source' movement if
> a closed-source company (such as Microsoft) buys out
> a company that holds patents on open-source software?
If the patents have not been introduced to a commons of some kind, by
making them RF in perpetuity, then it's possible that some damage could
be done, although it's also possible that such damage could be limited
to the Nafta countries and Australia.
One interesting possibility is that software development could migrate
to geographies where software patents are not valid, such as the EU,
China, India, New Zealand, RSA, South and non-nafta Central America,
Russian Federation, Indonesia & Asia.
>
> Thanks in advance for all your answers and comments.
>
> Kelton
--
| mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| Open platforms prevent vendor lock-in. Own your Own services! |
|
|
