Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://blog.actonline.org/2007/05/microsoft_paten.html
------ Microsoft Patents FUD Report: Who is Actually Slinging it?
My morning news review had me chuckling this morning. Following Matt
Asay's post on the InfoWorld Open Sources blog, I watched Eben
Moglen's passionate attack on the Microsoft/Novell deal and his
analysis of Microsoft's supposed FUD strategy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YExl9ojclo
In it, Moglen accuses Microsoft of going on a "Be Very Afraid" tour
around the world designed to spread FUD about their patents and how
they may affect Free Software. I nearly spit out my coffee I was
laughing so hard.
Moglen is being COMPLETELY DISINGENUOUS and he knows it. The reality
is that Stallman, the Free Software Community, and anti-software
patent advocates have been complicit in this supposed FUD campaign
about Microsoft's Patents, and could it could be argued are actually
LEADING it.
I readily admit that Microsoft has made cryptic and/or blunt comments
in the past about its patents and how Linux and/or Free Software may
be infringing on them. I'll also admit that I don't know how solid
Microsoft's case may be. Many of the patents could be bogus, the
infringement cases could be weak, etc., (I still think, however, that
the chances are pretty good they have a case on more than one of
their patents). But, that isn't the point.
Moglen, Stallman, and the Free Software community despise the entire
idea of software patents and have been campaigning against them all
around the world. In their efforts, they trot out the boogeyman of
big, bad Microsoft using its mountains of patents to cripple Linux
and Free Software at every opportunity. I don't really have time to
look up all the examples of this, but here are just a few in addition
to my references from earlier this week:
Stallman raises the Microsoft patent boogeyman in his article "Saving
Europe from Software Patents":
Later in 1998, Microsoft menaced the World Wide Web, by obtaining a
patent affecting style sheets--after encouraging the WWW Consortium
to incorporate the feature in the standard. It's not the first time
that a standards group has been lured into a patent's maw. Public
reaction convinced Microsoft to back down from enforcing this patent;
but we can't count on mercy every time.
The NoSoftwarePatents.org site plays up the threat from Microsoft's
patents to Linux and Free Software throughout the site including:
"It would be naive to think that Microsoft and other large companies
would not resort to patent litigation if open source continues to
have such a dramatic impact on their business."
"It is conspicuous that Microsoft frequently mentions patents in a
very close connection with the competitive challenge from open
source. In 2004 alone, Microsoft projected to apply for approximately
3,000 patents worldwide, many of those in Europe. In July of 2004,
NewsForge.com published a memorandum by a senior manager of Hewlett-
Packard, one of the world's largest computer manufacturers. The
respective E-mail predicted that Microsoft would "use the legal
system to shut down open source" but would firstly await the outcome
of the legislative process concerning software patents in the
European Union. Those conjectures were based on a patent
cross-licensing negotiation that the HP executive had with Microsoft,
and on some clauses in that agreement."
So, when it fits their strategic goal of killing software patents,
Stallman et al talked as if the threat from Microsoft's patents was
deadly real. Now that Microsoft is finally admitting they think
Linux distributions ARE infringing their patents, they change their
story.
If they always assumed Microsoft's patents were bogus, why didn't
they calm the fears of their developers rather than fan the flames in
all their anti-patent rhetoric?? ------
regards, alexander.
What is utterly laughable is the fact that a purported copyright
license like the GPL3 *cannot* effect matters concerning patents. If
source code implements a patentable idea then the source code in
quenstion cannot be copyrighted:
“In addition to spurring the creation and publication of new
expression, copyright law contains built-in First Amendment
accommodations. See id., at 560. First, it distinguishes between ideas
and expression and makes only the latter eligible for copyright
protection. Specifically, 17 U. S. C. §102(b) provides: “In no case does
copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any
idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept,
principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is
described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.” As we said
in Harper & Row, this “idea/expression dichotomy strike[s] a
definitional balance between the First Amendment and the Copyright Act
by permitting free communication of facts while still protecting an
author’s expression.” 471 U. S., at 556 (internal quotation marks
omitted). DUE TO THIS DISTINCTION, EVERY IDEA, THEORY, AND FACT IN A
COPYRIGHTED WORK BECOMES INSTANTLY AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC EXPLOITATION AT
THE MOMENT OF PUBLICATION. See Feist, 499 U. S., at 349–350.
Second, the “fair use” defense allows the public to use NOT ONLY
FACTS AND IDEAS contained in a copyrighted work, but also expression
itself in certain circumstances. Codified at 17 U. S. C. §107, the
defense provides: . . .”, Eldred V. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003).
The GPL3's "patent-busting" abilities are a figment of Moglen's fertile
imagination.
rjack
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
