Q: Why are you upset? The IBM multi-pipe patent probably doesnt overlap with hubfs, as a legal matter, because the patent is really about the implementation details, not the general idea of muxing.
I understand these things pretty well. The problem is, everyone knows that software patents are a huge mess and exactly what is considered the "meat" of the patent and what is considered the "implementation detail" is not at all clear until the matter is actually litigated in court - and it is not as if there is any public disclosure for how this patent is being used, and exactly how IBM regards the scope of the claims. That's precisely the problem with the whole thing. Suppose I had never written hubfs. I would look at this patent and say "wow, I can't write this software, because it would be very easy to claim it was infringing" - and its not as if IBM would offer me any kind of guarantee that I can write whatever pipefs I want to and not violate their patent. That is why its all wrong. As I believe I have said clearly, I think that Doug McIlroy invented all of this clearly in his original garden hose and grid/array ideas, and doing muxing 9p pipes with a detailed control interface is not something that I believe should be patentable, because the clarity as to what exactly would or would not conflict with this patent isn't available. I should be able to make Plan 9 grid software in my basement without worrying about all of the patent landmines. Furthermore, there is the basic moral issue that we have a system that rewards non-cooperative behavior more than cooperative behavior. The goal of a system of laws is to produce benefits for society. I fail to see how the patent in question can be said to produce any benefit to society in comparison to having the same technology available without a patent and without restricting what independent creators can do and offer to the world. Ben Kidwell "mycroftiv"
