Content deleted Content added
Rescuing 4 sources and tagging 0 as dead.) #IABot (v2.0.9.3) (Whoop whoop pull up - 12910 |
rm dead pov tag: no extant dispute |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
Line 4:
{{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]].
==Positions from the community==
Community leaders such as [[Richard Stallman]],<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.ifso.ie/documents/rms-2004-05-24.html
Line 22 ⟶ 20:
|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
Line 36 ⟶ 34:
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110720010536/http://www.effi.org/patentit/patents_torvalds_cox.html
|url-status=dead
}}</ref>
==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>▼
▲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}}</ref>
==Problems for free software==
Line 72 ⟶ 69:
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|
==Techniques for opposing patents==
Line 79 ⟶ 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.
|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===
Line 217 ⟶ 212:
|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=
|url=http://corp.mandriva.com/webteam/2007/06/19/we-will-not-go-to-canossa/
|title=We will not go to Canossa
Line 240 ⟶ 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://
|url = http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS2013674721.html
|archive-url = https://archive.today/20130103223944/http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS2013674721.html
Line 248 ⟶ 243:
|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
Line 275 ⟶ 270:
{{DEFAULTSORT:Software Patents And Free Software}}
[[Category:Software patent law]]
[[Category:Free software culture and documents|Patents]]
| |||