Software patents and free software: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:40, 23 December 2023

Latest revision as of 03:41, 5 February 2025

(4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)

Line 4:

{{fanpov|date=October 2014}}

{{lead rewrite|date=October 2014}}

{{POV|date=October 2014}}

}}

{{Computer programs, software and patent law}}

Line 38 ⟶ 37:

==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==

Line 77 ⟶ 76:

"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.

The [[Free Software Foundation]] included a narrow patent retaliation clause inEarly drafts 1 and 2 of version 3 of the GPL,[[GNU however,General thisPublic clauseLicense]] was(GPLv3) removedcontained inseveral draftpatent 3retaliation asclauses itsthat enforceabilityvaried andin effectivenessscope, wassome decidedof towhich bewere toolater dubiousremoved due to beconcerns worth theabout addedtheir complexityefficacy.<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>

|url=https://fsfe.org/activities/gplv3/brussels-rms-transcript.en.html#retaliation}}</ref>

Examples of broader clauses are those of the [[Apache License]] and the [[Mozilla Public License]].

===Patent pools===

Line 238 ⟶ 235:

|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://wwwpatents.google.com/patents?id=3tUkAAAAEBAJ&dq=5,072,412patent/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