Two software patent lawsuites against open source developers.

[drag]

Software patents are a huge threat to not only open source software developers but to anyone that runs a small or medium sized business that does any software development of any sort that can't afford to litigate a lawsuit of upwards to several hundred thousand dollars. Larger companies can tend to afford to absorb the costs (like Microsoft with them themselves being not infrequent victims of software patent attacks from various lawyer owned 'IP' firms).

This has a huge chilling effect on any sort of advancement in the state of the art of software in the United States (and any other region that supports software patents) and it drive development costs higher. (think about the costs associated with hiring teams of lawyers to scruitinize every line of code that programmers produce)

The first, older lawsuit, is against a person who made model trains for a hobby. He developed some java software that allowed him to more easily control his trains from his PC. He thought it would be nice if other model hobbyists could use his program and modify it's source code to work with their setup, so he posted it online.

As a result of this he is being sued for two hundred and three thousand dollars due to patent violations.

details:
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20060514233436196


The other lawsuite is against Redhat and they are being sued for having code inside a 'hibernate' function in "Jboss". JBoss is java-based application development software, which was recently aquired by Redhat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JBoss

details can be found at:
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2006/06/red_hat_faces_p.html

The clause of the Patent #6101520 which they appear to violate is this:

1. A method for interfacing an object oriented software application with a relational database, comprising the steps of:

* selecting an object model;
* generating a map of at least some relationships between schema in the database and the selected object model;
* employing the map to create at least one interface object associated with an object corresponding to a class associated with the object oriented software application; and
* utilizing a runtime engine which invokes said at least one interface object with the object oriented application to access data from the relational database.

A good article about these 2 things and with information and links of why software patents threaten to stifle the software industry written by Bruce Peren is aviable at technocrat.com's website at
http://technocrat.net/d/2006/6/30/5032

 

[bendixG15]

Its a deep read.........

 

[bersl2]

:thumbsdown:

 

[n0cmonkey]

A patent proposal could stall the IETF from creating a syslog standard. Ignore the fact that the patent application is basically a secret, or that no one has proven something new in the patent application. Just sit back and let the corporation ignore years of prior art. It's the American way. 😉

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: drag

1. A method for interfacing an object oriented software application with a relational database, comprising the steps of:

* selecting an object model;
* generating a map of at least some relationships between schema in the database and the selected object model;
* employing the map to create at least one interface object associated with an object corresponding to a class associated with the object oriented software application; and
* utilizing a runtime engine which invokes said at least one interface object with the object oriented application to access data from the relational database.

How odd, that's basically object/relational mapping in nutshell. I hope they're ready to take on most of the world's major software vendors 😕

 

[Brazen]

The model train article is a good read. So basically this Katzer guy took GPL'd software and got a patent on it, and it now suing the original author of the GPL's software?! I hope this guy gets buried. I'll be looking forward to seeing the results of the case.

 

[Markbnj]

1. A method for interfacing an object oriented software application with a relational database, comprising the steps of:

* selecting an object model;
* generating a map of at least some relationships between schema in the database and the selected object model;
* employing the map to create at least one interface object associated with an object corresponding to a class associated with the object oriented software application; and
* utilizing a runtime engine which invokes said at least one interface object with the object oriented application to access data from the relational database.

Sheesh, what's the date on that patent? I was doing this in 1990.

The whole concept of software patents is stupid, and it always has been.

 

[Armitage]

If the damn patent office would do its job :roll:
Software patents are a bad idea to begin with - but on top of that the patent office has been doing a terrible job wrt prior art.

But of course, it costs so damn much to fight that open source in particular is very vulnerable.

 

[bersl2]

Originally posted by: Armitage
If the damn patent office would do its job :roll:
Software patents are a bad idea to begin with - but on top of that the patent office has been doing a terrible job wrt prior art.

But of course, it costs so damn much to fight that open source in particular is very vulnerable.

The volume of patent applications has by far exceeded the capacity of the patent office to handle them.

 

[drag]

The ironic thing is that the patent office is the only branch of the government that is PROFITABLE. They actually make money from all this B.S.

It generates income for the government.. so the beuacrates and polititions are going to be doubly less likely to engage in patent reform because that would be removing a source of income.

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: bersl2

Originally posted by: Armitage
If the damn patent office would do its job :roll:
Software patents are a bad idea to begin with - but on top of that the patent office has been doing a terrible job wrt prior art.

But of course, it costs so damn much to fight that open source in particular is very vulnerable.

The volume of patent applications has by far exceeded the capacity of the patent office to handle them.

What's your point exactly?

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: bersl2

Originally posted by: Armitage
If the damn patent office would do its job :roll:
Software patents are a bad idea to begin with - but on top of that the patent office has been doing a terrible job wrt prior art.

But of course, it costs so damn much to fight that open source in particular is very vulnerable.

The volume of patent applications has by far exceeded the capacity of the patent office to handle them.

Doesn't excuse doing the job wrong. You do it correctly for the number of patents their budget supports and ask for more money - loudly & often. When people get pissed off enough at the delays they'll talk to their representatives - when the representatives talk to the patent office they'll have the other end the story. "We need this much money to do it right, we've been asking for more for X years, this is the result."

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: Armitage

Originally posted by: bersl2

Originally posted by: Armitage
If the damn patent office would do its job :roll:
Software patents are a bad idea to begin with - but on top of that the patent office has been doing a terrible job wrt prior art.

But of course, it costs so damn much to fight that open source in particular is very vulnerable.

The volume of patent applications has by far exceeded the capacity of the patent office to handle them.

Doesn't excuse doing the job wrong. You do it correctly for the number of patents their budget supports and ask for more money - loudly & often. When people get pissed off enough at the delays they'll talk to their representatives - when the representatives talk to the patent office they'll have the other end the story. "We need this much money to do it right, we've been asking for more for X years, this is the result."

When you apply for a patent you pay the costs of proccessing that patent application. That's why the patent office makes money from doing it.. they are profitable. They are forced to proccess it as fast as possible then the government pockets the money.

The whole point of patents is a pratical one.

The idea was that if you are a person that invents something then they are allowed to patent that idea. As a result sociaty suffers because you hand over the monopoly of a concept to somebody..

But at the same time by doing a patent application your forced to document your invention. This removes your ability to keep trade secrets if you want to get a patent. This allows academics and other inventors to examine your idea in detail and then create new ideas based on that one that they can patent.

Also so if you make inventing profitable then people are driven to make new inventions.. And since that monopoly status is only temporary you have to make new ideas if you want to make money.

In the land of software this doesn't work.

Software is already protected by copyrights. If your a engineer and design a engine for your car there is no reason another person just can't copy your motor, unless you have new patents on it. With software they just can't copy it because they would be violating your copyrights.

Software patents are counter-productive and defeat the purpose for which they were originally intended. Now other types of patents are still pretty much fine, although there is probably need for some reform with those also.

The solution isn't to increase the budget so that the patent office can handle the thousands of software patent applications.. the solution is to eliminate software patents.

 

[KB]

Whats the point of suing Open Source.... OMG you get 10% royalties of all software sold. That means you get $0. They sell service not software.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: KB
Whats the point of suing Open Source.... OMG you get 10% royalties of all software sold. That means you get $0. They sell service not software.

Nope - they would sue for their losses due to the infringement. But really, the real risk isn't really the ones that want the money. The real risk is from companies with large software patent portfolios that simply want to see OSS disapear from the competative landscape.

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: Armitage

Originally posted by: bersl2

Originally posted by: Armitage
If the damn patent office would do its job :roll:
Software patents are a bad idea to begin with - but on top of that the patent office has been doing a terrible job wrt prior art.

But of course, it costs so damn much to fight that open source in particular is very vulnerable.

The volume of patent applications has by far exceeded the capacity of the patent office to handle them.

Doesn't excuse doing the job wrong. You do it correctly for the number of patents their budget supports and ask for more money - loudly & often. When people get pissed off enough at the delays they'll talk to their representatives - when the representatives talk to the patent office they'll have the other end the story. "We need this much money to do it right, we've been asking for more for X years, this is the result."

Or, preferably, the trolls who file questionable applications because of the chance they'll get granted without proper investigation will no longer get away with it, will stop wasting their time, and the volume will decrease.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: Armitage

Originally posted by: KB
Whats the point of suing Open Source.... OMG you get 10% royalties of all software sold. That means you get $0. They sell service not software.

Nope - they would sue for their losses due to the infringement. But really, the real risk isn't really the ones that want the money. The real risk is from companies with large software patent portfolios that simply want to see OSS disapear from the competative landscape.

Ya, from my (very limited) understanding there is a number of things that can happen.

Suing for damages would be pretty unlikely for open source software in most cases, although it's still possible. Just because you don't charge for software doesn't mean your not liable. Microsoft didn't charge for IE, but they still got successfully sued by the University of California (aka Eolas).

But also you can get a injunction against you. Also you would then have to pay after that for any software you make or change how your software works.

The real danger is simply the cost of being taken to court. It's the legal overhead that will destroy you.

Even if you win against a patent dispute (which is itself very unlikely.. People 9 times out of 10 do loose patent cases) the cost of legal fees will break you. If you get sued that will cost tens and even hundreds of thousands of dollars. And that's if you WIN! Most open source programmers are individuals and there is no way a average American can even hope to afford something like that.

Every programmer would have to have a team of laywers who are not only experts in law, but experts in programming to help them out if they wanted to make sure to avoid patents.. And even then it would be technically impossible to avoid violating patents. You'd just be making it more difficult to be sued.

Big guys like IBM and Microsoft can afford to do this, but not individuals or medium small businesses.... These individuals and small/medium businesses are the backbone of technological development in the United States, and these guys are under the major threat. It doesn't matter if it's closed source or not.

Also it's nice to point out that along with the java train guy Sourceforge (I beleive) is also being sued.. Not for making the software, but for distributing it.