On Friday 18 May 2007 02:54, M. Fioretti wrote: > On Wed, May 16, 2007 12:10:46 PM -0700, James D. Parra > > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > This is a good article; > > > > http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/12212/53/ > > Please, not again! Can it be good if it makes mistakes like this: > > "Even if hypothetically there are patent infringements in the Linux > > kernel, then the open source community would do the right thing and > > remove the offending code > > You can write or believe this only if you confuse (or want to confuse) > patents with copyright, which is a pretty dangerous thing to do with > FOSS. Software patents (regardless of whether they have a reason to > exist) protect specific algorithm and functionalities. Copyright only > protects actual text, that is the specific _incarnation_ in C, C++ or > whatever, of a certain algorithm. > > If you copy and paste proprietary source code in your program, it is a > copyright violation: to fix it, you just cancel those lines of code, > and rewrite new code which has different variable names, a different > order of the flow diagram, etc... but implement the same > algorithm. That's it. > > But if there is a patent on, say, the _mathematical_ _formulas_ or the > abstract flow diagram which make the Linux kernel multitasking, you > cannot "remove the offending code", because what the patent forbids is > any use of those algorithm and diagrams in any forms, no matter how > you write the related code. The only way to "remove the offending > code" of a patent is to STOP using that functionality. > > This has nothing to do with whether there are or not patent violations > in Linux or any other GPL software. It's just a basic distinction > which should not be forgotten, if nothing else to stop repeating > absurdities like the one in that article, that is the illusion that > you can cure a patent violation as painlessly as you cure a copyright > one. > > Not to mention that: > > and, because open source development moves so rapidly, that means > > Linux would no longer be infringing before it even got to court. > > this would not change much for any individual or company found guilty > of patent violations in the code they distributed until yesterday
Well I am not a lawyer but I think there are problems with Microsoft claims. I think under US legal system damages can only be awarded if proper notice of the patent was given. Notice is given by the patent owner by marking the patented product with the designation "patented," or the abbreviation "pat.," followed by the patent number. Such notice should be applied to the patented article or articles made by a patented process. The patent number would have to be included with every file of code they ever produced. Also since software patends are a fairly new thing they can not back date their claims to the beginning of Windows or even Linux. Furthermore it would be very hard to prove if Microsoft experienced any financial loss directly caused buy the patend infringements. Than again stranger things happened. I have been selling on line for a long time. A few years ago Some American company started accusing people selling on line of patend infringements. Apparently they owned a patend for online sales and everybody who sells using that method will have to pay royalties. When they contacted me I simply told them to f**k off but I heard that some gullible folk got conned into paying thousands of $. The main problem here is the patent office. Some years ago here in Australia some guy in Melbourne tested the idiotic system and applied for patent for a "wheel". The patent has been granted. -- Regards, George Osvald OK Studio ® http://www.okstudio.com.au Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
