Sorry, sorry, couldn’t help the CCR reference given the flak (all in good humor flak, rather than the other kind of flak 😉 I caught over the reference I made in my “Why I Don’t Talk Politics” entry. But in all seriousness, the patent situation domestically is rapidly moving from bad to worse, and will impact all of us. Dan Gillmor’s take is, I think, right on: (link)
IT has a serious stake in this. The intellectual property dust-up over Linux seems likely to be the tip of a nasty iceberg, with patent holders (especially Microsoft, I suspect) potentially using threats about alleged infringement to scare people away from open-source software. And companies developing their products are increasingly filing for patents on everything that moves, mostly for defensive reasons. Wouldn’t you rather see high-tech firms hiring engineers instead of lawyers? I would.
Everyone’s weighing in on the topic these days, from Sun’s Jonathan Schwartz to GROKLAW’s Pamela Jones. Both of those links, BTW, are highly ironic, for different reasons. Sun’s Schwartz declares that “Copyright, trademark, patent – I believe in them all” – and the next day gets slapped with a $1B patent infringement claim, while Jones is forced to defend her third favorite target (after SCO and Microsoft).
My own position? Well, I make no claims to having passed the BAR when it comes to the nuances of patent law, but it seems pretty evident to me that if the patent system isn’t broken, it’s at least highly flawed. When claims can be made for such basic, fundamental functions such as hyperlinks or an application’s method for asking for help, I can’t conclude anything but that. Patents exist to protect inventors, yes, but also to foster innovation. Tough to see how any of these claims accomplish the second goal, or even, in many cases, the first. Many of these patents aren’t protecting inventors – they’re now an alternative revenue model for declining organizations such as Kodak or SCO.
So now we’re faced with a world in which Open Office may suffer simply because of the threat of potential patent issues, and Linux still has 283 potential infringements looming over its head. In the latter case, the litigation potential has had a near zero impact on adoption as nearly as I can determine, but it’s more the exception than the rule. What of the hundreds or even thousands of other projects out there that may threaten obscure and hitherto unenforced patents? Well, they likely don’t have to worry until the attract dollars, because as we’ve seen it’s then and only then that patent-holders comb through their respective libraries, desperate for a way to cash in their winning patent lottery tickets.
I, for one, could do without the constant discussion around litigation – and I don’t even bother to comment publically on the SCO trial any longer. It’s a waste of everyone’s time. Let’s find a way to protect innovaters without stifling innovation. It’s not impossible. It can be done.
Last thought? Miguel’s comments on patents look more and more sensible to me every day:
Not using Mono in any shape or form is not a blank waiver against patents. That means that even if you choose to stick to your beloved C, Python, C++ or anything else, for any new software you write, you are likely to infringe on someone else’s patents (or even the same ones that Mono could potentially infringe).
