Content deleted Content added
m remove a few words |
rm dead pov tag: no extant dispute |
||
| (229 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Short description|Opposition to software patents}}
{{multiple issues|
{{COI|date=October 2014}}
{{fanpov|date=October 2014}}
{{lead rewrite|date=October 2014}}
}}
{{Computer programs, software and patent law}}
Opposition to [[software patents]] is widespread in the [[free software community]]. In response, various mechanisms have been tried to defuse the perceived problem.
==
Community leaders such as [[Richard Stallman]],<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.ifso.ie/documents/rms-2004-05-24.html |title=Transcript of Richard Stallman speaking about software patents
}}</ref> [[Alan Cox (computer programmer)|Alan Cox]],<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.linuxformat.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=15#patents
|title=Alan Cox on software patents
|date=2005-08-01
|access-date=2007-03-10
|archive-date=2008-12-29
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081229064859/http://www.linuxformat.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=15#patents
|url-status=dead
}}</ref> [[Bruce Perens]],<ref>[http://perens.com/Articles/Patents.html /home/bruce/Patents.html<!-- Bot generated title -->] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070305130408/http://perens.com/Articles/Patents.html |date=2007-03-05 }}</ref> and [[Linus Torvalds]];<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://linux-foundation.org/weblogs/openvoices/linus-torvalds-part-ii/
|title=Linux Foundation Interview with Linus Torvalds, mostly talking about software patents
|access-date=2008-02-06
|archive-date=2008-02-05
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080205205849/http://linux-foundation.org/weblogs/openvoices/linus-torvalds-part-ii/
|url-status=dead
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.effi.org/patentit/patents_torvalds_cox.html
|title=Open Letter on Software Patents from Linux developers
|access-date=2007-03-10
|archive-date=2011-07-20
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110720010536/http://www.effi.org/patentit/patents_torvalds_cox.html
|url-status=dead
}}</ref> companies such as [[Red Hat]]<ref>[http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html redhat.com | Red Hat Patent Policy<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> and [[MySQL]];<ref>[http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/patents.html MySQL AB :: MySQL Public Patent Policy<!-- Bot generated title -->] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080705175742/http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/patents.html |date=2008-07-05 }}</ref> and community groups such as [[Free Software Foundation Europe|FSFE]]<ref>[http://fsfeurope.org/projects/swpat/ FSFE - Software Patents in Europe<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> and [[Irish Free Software Organisation|IFSO]]<ref>[http://ifso.ie/projects/swpats.html Software Patentability & EU Directive COD/2002/0047<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> all believe that patents cause problems for free software.
==Patent licensing==
Leading open-source figures and companies<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/66807|title = Red Hat urges patent office to deny most software patents|date = 29 September 2010}}</ref> have complained that software patents are overly broad and the [[USPTO]] should reject most of them. [[Bill Gates]] has said "If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today’s ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today".<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://news.swpat.org/2010/06/late-comers-guide-what-is-bilski-anyway/|title=Late-comers guide: What is Bilski anyway? – End Software Patents|date=28 June 2010 }}</ref>
==Problems for free software==
Free software projects cannot agree to patent licences that include any kind of per-copy fee. No matter how low the fee is, there is no way for a free software distributor to know how many copies are being made. Also, adding any requirements to pay or to notify someone each time a copy is made would make the software no longer free software.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.ifso.ie/documents/rms-2004-05-24.html#license
|title=The Dangers of Software Patents
|author=Richard Stallman
}}</ref>
A patent licence that is [[royalty-free]], or provides a one-time worldwide payment is acceptable. Version 2 of the [[GNU General Public License]] does not allow software to be distributed if that software requires a patent licence that does not "''permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you''".<ref>{{cite web
|url=https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html
|title=GNU General Public License version 2
}}</ref>
The Version 2 of the [[GNU General Public License]]<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html|title=GNU General Public License version 2}}</ref> of 1991 also says that patents convert free software to proprietary software:
"''Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.''"
==The 2004 OSRM study==
In 2004, [[Open Source Risk Management]] commissioned a patent study, carried out by [[Dan Ravicher]]. For this study, Ravicher performed patent searches to estimate the patent-risk of the [[Linux kernel]]:<ref>{{cite web
|url = http://www.osriskmanagement.com/press_releases/press_release_080204.pdf
|title = OSRM PR: Results of First-Ever Linux Patent Review Announced
|url-status = dead
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080703214013/http://www.osriskmanagement.com/press_releases/press_release_080204.pdf
|archive-date = 2008-07-03
}}</ref>
<blockquote>
In conclusion, he found that no court-validated software patent is
infringed by the Linux kernel. However, Ravicher also found 283 issued but
not yet court-validated software patents that, if upheld as valid by the
courts, could potentially be used to support patent claims against Linux.
</blockquote>However, [[Mark Webbink]], who was Red Hat's Deputy General Counsel, said that Ravicher did not deduce the kernel to infringe any of said patents.<ref>{{Cite web|date=September 20, 2005|first=Mark|last=Vernon |title=Are potential legal liabilities holding back Linux adoption?|url=https://www.techrepublic.com/article/are-potential-legal-liabilities-holding-back-linux-adoption/|access-date=2021-07-15|website=TechRepublic |language=en}}</ref>
==Techniques for opposing patents==
===Patent retaliation===
"Patent retaliation" clauses are included in several [[free software licenses]]. The goal of these clauses is to create a penalty so as to discourage the licensee (the user/recipient of the software) from suing the licensor (the provider/author of the software) for [[patent infringement]] by terminating the license upon the initiation of such a lawsuit.
Early drafts of version 3 of the [[GNU General Public License]] (GPLv3) contained several patent retaliation clauses that varied in scope, some of which were later removed due to concerns about their efficacy.<ref>{{cite web
|title=Richard Stallman speaking about GPLv3 in April 2007
|url=https://fsfe.org/activities/gplv3/brussels-rms-transcript.en.html#retaliation}}</ref> The final published version of GPLv3 contains a patent retaliation clause similar to those in the [[Apache License]] and [[Mozilla Public License]], which terminates rights granted by the license in response to litigation alleging patent infringement in the software.<ref>{{cite web |website=GNU Project |publisher=Free Software Foundation |url=https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v3PatentRetaliation |title=GPL FAQ: Does GPLv3 have a 'patent retaliation clause'?}}</ref>
===Patent pools===
In 2005, [[IBM]], [[Novell]], [[Philips]], [[Red Hat]], and [[Sony]] founded the [[Open Invention Network]] (OIN). OIN is a company that acquires patents and offers them royalty free "to any company, institution or individual that agrees not to assert its patents against the [[Linux operating system]] or certain Linux-related applications".<ref>{{cite web | date=November 10, 2005 | url=http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/press_release11_05.php | title=Open Invention Network formed to promote Linux and spur innovation globally through access to key patents | publisher=[[Open Invention Network]] | access-date=April 17, 2006 | url-status=dead | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060812033542/http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/press_release11_05.php | archive-date=August 12, 2006 }}</ref>
Novell donated the valuable [[Commerce One]] web services patents to OIN. These potentially threaten anyone who uses web services. OIN's founders intend for these patents to encourage others to join, and to discourage legal threats against Linux and Linux-related applications. Along with several other projects, [[Mono (software)|Mono]] is listed as a covered project.
===Lobbying for legislative change===
Movements have formed to lobby against the existence and enforceability of software patents. The earliest was the [[League for Programming Freedom]] in the USA. Probably the most successful was the anti-software-patent campaign in Europe that resulted in the rejection by the [[European Parliament]] of the [[Proposed directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions]] which, the free software community argues, would have made software patents enforceable in the [[European Union]]. A fledgling movement also exists in [[South Africa]].<ref>{{cite web
|url = http://www.ftisa.org.za/
|title = Freedom to Innovate South Africa
|url-status = dead
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070520060215/http://www.ftisa.org.za/
|archive-date = 2007-05-20
}}</ref>
==Promises from patent holders==
Some software companies who hold significant [[patent portfolio]]s have made non-aggression pledges to the free software community. These have varied in scope and have received a variety of responses. IBM,<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://linuxdevices.com/news/NS9492990539.html
|url-status=dead
|title=Top patent awardee donates 500 patents to open source
|date=2005-01-11
|publisher = [[Ziff Davis Publishing Holdings Inc.]]
|work = [[LinuxDevices.com]] — news
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20050114160320/http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS9492990539.html
|archive-date = 2005-01-14
}}</ref> Sun, and Nokia<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://linuxdevices.com/news/NS8236182857.html
|url-status=dead
|title=Nokia gives Linux bye on patents
|date=2005-05-26
|publisher = [[Ziff Davis Publishing Holdings Inc.]]
|work = [[LinuxDevices.com]] — news
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050528105028/http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS8236182857.html
|archive-date = 2005-05-28
}}</ref> are three examples. These have been described by Richard Stallman as "significant", "not really anything", and "next to nothing", respectively.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT4665245733.html<!-- http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/Linux-For-Devices-Articles/Guest-editorial-Nokias-patent-announcement-next-to-nothing/ -->
|url-status=live
|title=Nokia's patent announcement next to nothing
|author=Richard Stallman
|date=2005-05-30
|publisher = [[Ziff Davis Publishing Holdings Inc.]]
|work = [[LinuxDevices.com]] — news
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051210194015/http://linuxdevices.com/articles/AT4665245733.html
|archive-date=2005-12-10
}}</ref>
Microsoft has irrevocably pledged not to assert any claims against open source developers<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.microsoft.com/interop/principles/osspatentpledge.mspx
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080301234058/http://www.microsoft.com/interop/principles/osspatentpledge.mspx
|url-status=dead
|archive-date=2008-03-01
|title=Microsoft Patent Pledge for Open Source Developers
|author=Microsoft
|website=[[Microsoft]]
|access-date=2009-12-07
}}</ref> which CEO [[Steve Ballmer]] called "an important step and significant change in how we share information about our products and technologies."<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2008/feb08/02-21expandinteroperabilitypr.mspx
|title=Microsoft Makes Strategic Changes in Technology and Business Practices to Expand Interoperability
|author=Microsoft
|website=[[Microsoft]]
|access-date=2009-12-07
}}</ref> This pledge has been accepted with some skepticism.<ref>{{cite web
|url = http://www.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?doc_cd=155733
|title = Microsoft Declares Interfaces Accessible; Royalties May Apply
|author1 = George J. Weiss
|author2 = Matthew W. Cain
|author3 = Nikos Drakos
|access-date = 2009-12-07
|url-status = bot: unknown
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120910183540/http://www.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?doc_cd=155733
|archive-date = 2012-09-10
}}</ref>
==Infringement claims==
[[Microsoft]] has claimed that [[free software]] such as [[OpenOffice.org]] and the [[Linux kernel]] violate 235 Microsoft patents and said that it will seek licence fees,<ref>{{cite web |last=Parloff |first=Roger |date=2007-05-14 |title=Microsoft takes on the free world |url=https://fortune.com/2007/05/28/microsoft-linux-intellectual-property/ |access-date=2022-12-17 |publisher=[[Fortune (magazine)|Fortune]]}}</ref> but has so far failed to disclose which patents they may violate. However, the [[Microsoft v. TomTom|2009 lawsuit]] against TomTom involved the use of Microsoft's patents for long filenames on FAT filesystems, the code for which was in the Linux kernel, not in any TomTom-developed software.<ref>{{cite web
| url=http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-10173126-75.html
| title=Open-source leaders see Microsoft-TomTom suit as a threat
| publisher=[[CNet]]
| date=2009-02-26
| last=Mills
| first=Elinor
| access-date=2010-06-10
| archive-date=2011-06-17
| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110617024457/http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-10173126-75.html
| url-status=dead
}}</ref> The Linux kernel developers subsequently worked around it.<ref>See the kernel option VFAT_FS_DUALNAMES</ref>
In 2011 a company called Bedrock Technologies LLC won a judgment of $5 million against Google for use of the Linux kernel, which the court found to violate US patent 5,893,120 (which was filed in 1997 and issued in 1999, and covers techniques for [[software caches]] likely used in every modern operating system). Bedrock went on to sue Yahoo and lost; Yahoo's defense amounted to the use of a different version of Linux which did not execute the particular code that Bedrock had pointed out as infringing,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.itworld.com/article/2742293/open-source-tools/yahoo--wins-verdict-in-bedrock-patent-trial.html |title=Yahoo! wins verdict in Bedrock patent trial {{!}} ITworld |website=www.itworld.com |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150409031602/http://www.itworld.com/article/2742293/open-source-tools/yahoo--wins-verdict-in-bedrock-patent-trial.html |archive-date=2015-04-09}}</ref> but the Yahoo case did not invalidate Bedrock's patent.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Yahoo-wins-Linux-patent-trial-that-Google-lost-1243687.html|title = Yahoo wins Linux patent trial that Google lost - the H Open: News and Features}}</ref> Details of exactly which code Bedrock said infringed the patent and how Yahoo managed to avoid executing that code are not publicly available<!-- (as far as I can see; if anybody knows, please add a reference) -->.
In January 2008, [[Trend Micro]] accused [[Barracuda Networks]] of patent infringement for distribution of the [[ClamAV]] anti-virus software.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.linuxworld.com/news/2008/012908-barracuda.html
|title=Barracuda turns to open source users for patent research
|access-date=2008-01-30
|archive-date=2008-01-31
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080131212827/http://www.linuxworld.com/news/2008/012908-barracuda.html
|url-status=dead
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.barracudanetworks.com/ns/legal/
|title=Legal Defense of Free and Open Source Software
|publisher=Barracuda Networks
|access-date=2008-01-30
|archive-date=2008-01-31
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080131140440/http://www.barracudanetworks.com/ns/legal/
|url-status=dead
}}</ref>
==Microsoft's patent deals==
{{See also|Novell#Agreement with Microsoft|l1=Novell's patent agreement with Microsoft}}
In November 2006, a highly controversial agreement was made between Novell and Microsoft that included patent licensing.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/patent_agreement.mspx
|title=The MS-Novell patent deal
|website=[[Microsoft]]
}}</ref> This led to much criticism of Novell by the [[free software community]].<ref>{{cite web
|url = http://techp.org/petition/show/1
|title = Bruce Perens's petition criticising Novell
|url-status = dead
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20090118053505/http://techp.org/petition/show/1
|archive-date = 2009-01-18
}}</ref>
In June 2007, [[Xandros]] announced a similar deal.<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070604183519938 | title=Groklaw article on Xandros' Microsoft deal}}</ref><ref>{{cite press release |url = http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2007/jun07/06-04XandrosPR.mspx | title=Microsoft, Xandros Broad Collaboration Agreement Extends Bridge Between Commercial Open Source and Microsoft Software }}</ref><ref>{{cite press release | url=http://forums.xandros.com/viewtopic.php?t=31406 | title=Xandros community forums, first thread on this topic | url-status=dead | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070928031448/http://forums.xandros.com/viewtopic.php?t=31406 | archive-date=2007-09-28 }}</ref>
On June 13, 2007, a deal was reached between Microsoft and [[Linspire]].<ref>[http://desktoplinux.com/news/NS9642338710.html Linspire, Microsoft in Linux-related deal<!-- Bot generated title -->] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070616135029/http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS9642338710.html |date=2007-06-16 }}</ref> In return, Linspire would change its default search engine from Google to Live search.<ref>[http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/07/06/14/1227201.shtml Slashdot | Linspire Signs Patent Pact With MS<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>
[[Ubuntu (operating system)|Ubuntu]] founder and director [[Mark Shuttleworth]] has said that Ubuntu will not be making any such deal,<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/127
|title=No negotiations with Microsoft in progress
|access-date=2007-06-25
|author=Mark Shuttleworth
|author-link=Mark Shuttleworth
|date=2007-06-16
|work=here be dragons
|quote=We have declined to discuss any agreement with Microsoft under the threat of unspecified patent infringements.
}}</ref> as have [[Red Hat]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.zdnet.com.au/ubuntu-red-hat-reject-microsoft-patent-deal-339278741.htm |title=Ubuntu, Red Hat reject Microsoft patent deal |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110607083033/http://www.zdnet.com.au/ubuntu-red-hat-reject-microsoft-patent-deal-339278741.htm |archive-date=June 7, 2011 }}</ref> These have been joined by a weaker statement from [[Mandriva]]<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://corp.mandriva.com/webteam/2007/06/19/we-will-not-go-to-canossa/
|title=We will not go to Canossa
|access-date=2007-06-20
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070621141310/http://corp.mandriva.com/webteam/2007/06/19/we-will-not-go-to-canossa/ <!-- Bot retrieved archive --> |archive-date = 2007-06-21}}</ref> that "''we don’t believe it is necessary for us to get protection from Microsoft''".
In October 2007, IP Innovation LLC, a company specialized in patent-protection, filed a suit for patent infringement against [[Red Hat]] and Novell.<ref name="LLCsuitezdnet">{{cite web
| url=http://blogs.zdnet.com/Berlind/?p=833&tag=nl.e622
| title=First patent suit against Linux has a Kevin Bacon-esque connection to Microsoft
| quote=''LLC is a subsidiary of Acacia Research Corporation... This past July Acacia hired Jonathan Taub away from his job as Director, Strategic Alliances for the Mobile and Embedded Devices (MED) division at Microsoft and then, just last week, it hired Brad Brunell away from his job at Microsoft where, among other jobs, he served as General Manager, Intellectual Property Licensing.''
| last=Berlind
| first=David
| publisher=zdnet
| date=2007-10-11
| access-date=2007-10-12
| archive-date=2007-10-24
| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071024002116/http://blogs.zdnet.com/Berlind/?p=833&tag=nl.e622
| url-status=dead
}}</ref><ref name="LLCsuitegroklaw">{{cite web
| url=http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071011205044141
| title=Patent Infringement Lawsuit Filed Against Red Hat & Novell - Just Like Ballmer Predicted
|publisher=groklaw
| date=2007-10-11
| access-date=2007-10-12}}</ref><ref>The U.S. patent 5,072,412 concerns the desktop User Interface, see [https://patents.google.com/patent/US5072412 here]</ref> However, IP Innovation LLC is a subsidiary of a company classified by some as a [[patent troll]],<ref>{{cite web
|url = http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS2013674721.html
|archive-url = https://archive.today/20130103223944/http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS2013674721.html
|url-status = dead
|archive-date = 2013-01-03
|title = Patent-troll company attacks Novell and Red Hat
|date = 2007-08-12
|access-date = 2009-12-07
}}</ref> and commentators suspect a strong connection between this company and Microsoft.<ref name="LLCsuitezdnet" /><ref name="LLCsuitegroklaw" /> In 2010, IP Innovation lost the suit.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Red Hat & Novell Beat IP Innovation and in Marshall, Texas, too | url = http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20100430223358785 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100611210642/http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20100430223358785 |archive-date=11 June 2010 |publisher=Groklaw |date=30 April 2010 | access-date = 5 July 2013 }}</ref>
In December 2007, Microsoft granted [[Samba (software)|the Samba project]] access to certain proprietary documents and must maintain a list of related patents for a one-time fee of 10,000 Euros.<ref>{{cite web
| url=http://samba.org/samba/PFIF/index.html
| title=Samba Team Receives Microsoft Protocol Documentation
| author=The Samba Team
| date=2007-12-20
| access-date=2009-12-07}}</ref> Microsoft was required to make this information available to competitors as part of the European Commission March 24, 2004 Decision pertaining to antitrust violations.
==See also==
{{
* [[Software
* [[Software
* [[Patentleft]]
==References==
{{Reflist|2}}
==External links==
* [https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/index.htm CNN: Microsoft takes on the free world], discusses Microsoft and FSF's position regarding software patents and free software
* [https://www.gnu.org/patent-examp/patent-examples.html Examples of Software Patents that hurt Free Software], published by Free Software Foundation
* [http://
{{FOSS}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Software Patents And Free Software}}
[[Category:
[[Category:Free software culture and documents|Patents]]
| |||