On 2/26/07, Matt Brown <matt(a)mattb.net.nz> wrote:
Craig Box wrote:
An interesting idea that came out of the /. thread on this topic was that Microsoft have a finite number of patents, and it would be a doable task, spread out amongst the entire open source ecosystem, to check each patent, and see if there is a chance there is infringing code in "Linux"/OSS. Again, it all comes down to the interpretation of angry lawyers, so even that might not solve anything.
It's an interesting idea, but it doesn't take into account that the patent system is so broken that there are likely to have been patents issued that are so broad as to make re-implementation impossible without completely altering the nature or operation of an application.
There's two parts to this broken business: 1) The patent under the existing law shouldn't have been issued e.g. prior art - which means someone else beat a firm to the invention 2) The patent system is wrong. i.e. should you be able to patent software ideas? My view is that we should clearly fight #1 as a firm is "stealing" an idea from someone else. #2 is a bit trickier and I have my reservations on this. Why should a software invention be any different from a hardware invention. It's still a process of human imagination and just because it's stored inside the machine does that make it any less valid than a piece of machinery? Just as the GPL relies on copyright we can still have open source software with patents if we explicitly allow the use of our intellectual property when we contribute. However in #2 we don't want to be able to patent the too obvious e.g. One click shopping from Amazon - should that really be patentable? Ian -- Web: http://wand.net.nz/~iam4 Blog: http://iansblog.jandi.co.nz WAND Network Research Group