[XCSSA] Re: [SATLUG] Did everyone catch this--Microsoft takes on the free world

[xcssa@xcssa.org]

On Wednesday 16 May 2007 19:37, xcssa-admin@xcssa.org wrote:
> Tweeks,
>
> Doesn't the patent holder have the privilege to prevent others from
> even using technology?  What about the privilege to prevent others
> from "distributing" technology, whether they charge for it or not?

Honestly, I don't know enough about patent law to say.  But most of the big 
cases /do/ seem to focus on the fact of "revenue sharing" from the "infringed 
technology".  Which technically, Red Hat is not directly selling.  Only the 
services around the free distribution of said FREE technology in question.
Again.. I ain't no lawyer.. ;)


> I'm one of those who opposes software patents in principle, like
> FSF. 

I have to agree.. especially since the same principal can be applied 
to "processes" which treads into biological and gene patents (which is really 
scary).


> Nothing in the patent law (that I know of, and I'm not an attorney)
> forces the patent holder to act in the public interest, other than
> "revealing the invention."  As far as I know, a company can even buy
> patent "B" simply to lock it up and prevent competition with their
> patent "A".

Yeah.. It's ironic that Gates himself admits that if the current abuse of 
patents were in place before computers became popular, that it would have 
stiffled all computer innovation of the past 50 years.


> The constitution rationalizes patents to serve the public interest,
> and I think that part ought to be enforced, not assumed.  Patent
> holders get public "protection" through the courts, police, etc.,
> without having to pay a dime for that.

Not in it's current state.. 
Those with the gold.. make the rules.



> In past, linux has been saved by proof of prior art, alternative
> patents, minor revision, etc.  I wasn't aware that the "zero cost"
> argument had any legal standing.

I don't know that it does.  But it was my thinking that it seemed to be a flaw 
in their logic.. In M$'s mind.. "Product=Software".. but that's not the case 
in the FLOSS world... In Open Source, "Product=Services".  So based on the 
difference alone, that "Revenue based on their patents" might be able to be 
dis-lodged from their revenue stream.. since Red Hat's (and most big open 
source company's) revenue is based on services.. NOT the sale of said 
patented software. :)

Is there a lawyer in the house?

Tweeks