On Thu May 17 2007, George Osvald scratched these words onto a coconut shell, hoping for an answer: > 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.
I think it's been obvious for some time that being "granted a patent" and having something enforcable aren't the same thing at all. Once upon a time it was, but presently it seems our patent office is so overwhelmed, and we don't appear to have an Einstein there as some other lucky country did once. That they just stamp things as patented and let the courts sort it out. It will be interesting to see if the Supremes do something useful and sort the mess, as they have hinted they might. Perhaps having a young-(ish) Chief Justice who is self IDed as a "geek" could work in favour of at least tightening what can and can not be patented. Seems it could be smart to copyright stuff tho. Maybe? or work toward the idea which works thusly in photography. The copyright is assumed as I click the shutter. Now my picture of Fuji san from the bullit train might appear to be one like many others, but it is different, as my eye and my hand made it. Others may make similar pics, but they wont make one exactly like mine, the time has passed. -- j I've lived in the real world enough, we're all here because we ain't all there. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
