Tim Smith wrote:
> In article
> "nessuno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <nessuno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > > The FSF has also stated that Linux violates a ton of Microsoft
>> > > patents.
>> > > Indeed, that used to be one of the major arguments against software
>> > > patents--that any significant open source project would, completely
>> > > accidently, violate a ton of patents, because the patent office is
>> > > letting patents go through that are not sufficiently non-obvious.
>> > Can you provide a link?
> The author of this study is legal director of the Software Freedom Law
> Center. RMS mentioned this in one of his talks on software patents:
> (Although I misspoke slightly--the FSF has not said that Linux *does*
> infringe patents. The study cited above finds 283 issued patents (27
> owned by Microsoft) that on the face of it cover parts of Linux. None
> of these patents have withstood a challenge in court, so they might not
> actually be found valid if challenged, and even if they are found valid,
> it is possible that Linux might be found to not infringe).
>> Tim is right, there was some statement from FSF to this effect---I
>> don't have the reference---but the point was that you couldn't do
>> anything without "violating" patents. Not just FOSS, of course, it
>> applies to anyone writing software. However, it's also true that
>> Microsoft has never revealed which patents it is referring to in its
>> threats to sue Linux users.
> Yeah, it's not just FOSS. Commercial, proprietary software companies
> are not left out--they get letters from patent owners (or, rather, from
> the law firms representing those owners) much more often than they would
> like, listing specific patents that are allegedly violated.
> When I see some company make noise in the press about some patents of
> theirs that they think broadly cover some area I'm working in, I'm kind
> of relieved, figuring that if they really had something worth making
> real trouble over, they'd be doing so. I figure making noise in the
> press is just for show--make the investors happy, maybe scare their
> competitor's investors a bit.
Thank you for that clarification. I still support the concept of no software
patents at all. The UK government APPEAR to stand by their opposition to
them as well. It's about the only policy of theirs I do agree with!
The years have been very kind to me.
It's the weekends that have done all the damage!