Home
| Calendar
| Mail Lists
| List Archives
| Desktop SIG
| Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU |
A Linux Magazine article on how software patents are used (in this case, specifically by Microsoft) to tamp down open source competition. Trimming the FAT: Linux and Patents http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7325/ Microsoft has long been claiming that there are hundreds of patent infringements in the Linux kernel, but has never come to the party to tell the free software world what they are. The reason Microsoft does this is because they feel that it keeps the balance of power in their hands and enables them to use the threat of patents to fight the adoption of Linux. The truth of the matter is that if the patent issues were made known, the free software world would work around them, solving the problem. Unfortunately this is a problem Microsoft wants to have and so to maintain leverage they aren't publicly disclosing their claims. Microsoft has been approaching companies to pay royalties over patents, and forcing them to sign non-disclosure agreements so as to not release the details of the deals. But this backfired in late 2008 when TomTom refused to accept the terms Microsoft was presenting and the patents were then thrust into the public spotlight. ... TomTom uses the Linux kernel's implementation of the VFAT file system in its devices and when the company refused to meet Microsoft's demands for royalty payments, Microsoft in turn filed a patent infringement action against them in February 2009. ... Andrew Tridgell recently submitted a patch to the Linux kernel which bypasses the VFAT patent issue in question. The fix addresses the core of the long filename issue, creating files on a VFAT partition with names longer than the 8.3 standard, that is; eight characters for the filename and three for the extension. In hindsight the fix is very simple; just don't allow the creation of filenames with more characters than the 8.3 standard permits. The patch still allows the system to read pre-existing longname files and supports case sensitivity. By default however, new files are created in the 8.3 standard, all in uppercase. ... Microsoft wants the world to believe that there are major patent issues in the Linux kernel, without telling what they are. By doing this they are trying to create a cloud of uncertainty around the use of free software and as a result are hoping to deter companies from taking up the technology over their own. By moving any patent issues into the public spotlight however, those in the free software world can help break down the cloud of fear, uncertainty and doubt that Microsoft is spreading. The future problem will be, are companies willing to fight back and make details of the patent claims public? I'm not sure why the above article, dated May 6th, 2009, didn't mention that the patent suit against TomTom was settled back in April: http://www.sdtimes.com/link/33382 Star-crossed patent litigants Microsoft and TomTom have settled their differences out of court; financial terms were not disclosed. The settlement requires TomTom to pay Microsoft for coverage under eight car navigation and file-system management patents for all past and future sales of relevant products. TomTom has also agreed to phase out functionality related to Microsoft's FAT LFN (Long File Name) file-system patents within two years. ... TomTom responded to Microsoft's legal actions with a countersuit, alleging that Microsoft's Streets & Trips navigation software product infringes on TomTom's patents. Under the terms of the settlement, Microsoft will receive coverage for four patents from TomTom. So it seems TomTom caved. On a more encouraging note... Experts mull changes to software patent process http://www.sdtimes.com/link/33433 In response to the controversy surrounding software patents, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has tightened up considerably on granting them, and they are now harder to get than any other type of patent (except for business methods). That's the view of Mark A. Lemley, a professor of law at Stanford Law School and director of Stanford's program in law, science and technology. ... Lemley suggested that one of the easiest reforms for Congress to enact would be a system that would give stronger patents to those who are willing to go through, "a more searching review in the USPTO." ... James Grimmelmann, an associate professor at New York Law School...said that industry peer review would address some of the most recurring and serious problems with bad software patents, such as when patents are too abstract or in cases where prior art exists. "Programmers know the tricks of the trade that are not in the universe of documents that USPTO reviewers look at," he said. ... The Supreme Court also raised the threshold for obviousness in 2007 when it ruled in favor of KRS, a company that refused to pay royalties on a rival's patents on the grounds that the patent combined preexisting elements in a predictable manner, said Grimmelmann. ... While patent reform in Congress has proven a long and difficult process, Lemley said, he believes that some sort of reform bill will pass in this Congressional session.
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |