>>>>> "rs" == Robert Soubie <robert.sou...@free.fr> writes:
rs> Don't you forget that these companies also do much of their
rs> business in foreign countries (Europe, Asia) where software
rs> patenting is not allowed,
dated myth. software patents do exist in europe, and the EPO has
issued them. Fewer are issued, and then there's more enforceability
question because unlke US, Europe has true federalism, but they still
exist. If you google for 'software patents europe' there is stuff
explaining this on the first page.
The EU patent debate seems to me about fighting attempts to globally
homogenize patents so that mountains of new patents would suddenly
become valid in Europe, and companies could jurisdiction-shop so you
would lose democratic control of the system's future. It's definitely
not as simple or as good as ``preserve the status quo of no software
patents.'' The European status quo is already not good enough to be
safe. It's just vastly better than the future WIPO ASSO wants to
bring you.
rs> where American law is not applicable,
Unfortunately I think American law is always applicable because it
seems patent law lets you sue almost anyone you like---the guy who
wrote it, the company that distributed it, the customer who bought it.
Only one has to be American, so American patents can be monetized with
few Americans involved. When companies are conducting business
negotiations based on the threat of lawsuit rather than the result,
these suits don't have to get very far for the blackmail to translate
into ``value.'' If there are really European companies opting out of
the American market entirely because of patents, I think that's
fantastic, but it doesn't seem very plausible with software where you
want a big market more than anything.
rs> And do you really believe that this mailing list is only
rs> devoted to (US) Americans just because the products originated
rs> in the US, and the vernacular is English?
your rage against hegemony or imperialism or empire or whatever you
want to whine about this week is misplaced here: if you have a problem
with American attitude or with the political landscape of the world,
fine, that's smart, me too, whatever, but it's got zero to do with the
complication patents add to an Oracle-free ZFS. Yeah it's really
American companies doing almost all this work (sorry, proud Europe!),
but anyway being European doesn't mean you can ignore American patents
because even the (unlikely?) best case of suddenly losing the entire
American market while suffering no loss from a judgement is still bad
enough to kill a company. What's on-topic is:
* when do the CDDL patent protections apply? to deals between Oracle
and Netapp? or is it only protection against Oracle patents? I
think the latter, but then, which Oracle patents? Suppose:
+ Oracle patents something needed ZFS crypto
+ Oracle publishes the promised yet-to-be-delivered zfs-crypto
paper that's thorough enough to write a compatible implementation
+ Oracle makes no further ZFS source releases, ever
+ Nexenta reimplements zfs-crypto and releases it CDDL with the
rest of ZFS
+ Oracle sues Nexenta. Oracle uses ``discovery'' to get exhaustive
Nexenta customer list. Oracle sues users of Nexenta. Oracle
monetizes ``Nexenta indemnification pack'' patent licenses and
blackmails Nexenta's customers.
CDDL was meant to create a space that appeared to be safe from the
last point. But CDDL patent stuff is no help here, I think? so,
in effect, patents reduce the software freedoms given by CDDL
because, once you fork whatever partial source Oracle deems fit to
distribute, you suffer increasing risk of stepping onto an
(Oracle-placed!) patent landmine.
* AIUI Oracle has distributed grub with zfs patches, and grub is
GPLv3. Is this true? If so, GPLv3 includes stuff to extend patent
deals, which was added becuase GPLv3 was written under the ominous
spectre of the Microsoft-Novell Linux indemnification deal. Does
GPLv3 grub extend any of the Netapp deal to those patented
algorithms which are used within grub? The GPLv3 is supposed to do
some of this, but I don't know how much.
Is it extended only to grub users for use in grub, or can the
patented stuff in grub be used anywhere by anyone who can get a
copy of grub: download GPLv3 grub, then use CDDL ZFS in a Linux
kmod with Oracle-provided immunity from any Netapp suit related to
a ZFS patent used also in grub? This sounds totally unrealistic to
me, so I would guess the GPLv3 protection would be much less, but
then what is it?
And anyway, though GPLv3 is meant to mandatorily extend private
patent deals, how can any patent protection from the Netapp deal be
extended when the deal is secret? Don't you need some basis to
force disclosure of the deal, and some way to define ``all relevant
deals''? If Oracle is defending themselves, they will pay lawyers
to search thoroughly for any deal that might help them, but if
Nexenta is defending from a Netapp suit, assuming Nexenta can get
any disclosure how does Nexenta force a thorough disclosure when
deciding the applicability of a patent is subjective and expensive?
The idea of writing clever licenses to virally dismantle the American
patent disaster is an exciting one, but I don't understand how the
patent clauses in these new licenses actually work. The law involved
is now so complicated that it's obviously impossible to guess one's
way through it instead of subtly impossible like it was before, so I
don't know how anyone but a lawyer can start a small company any more.
which is probably why there aren't any left, aside from small
companies where the only successful endgame planned is to get bought
by a big one.
pgpOUL3JmflXP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
