The latest tactic in the software-patenting battle is the granting of patent rights to open source developers. But are the grants really the equivalent of wolves in sheep's clothing?
That's not the only movement on the patent front. The possible approval of a software-patenting measure in Europe this Wednesday could bring a barrage of lawsuits on both sides of the Atlantic, affecting proprietary software as well as the open source community.
Let's take a closer look.
Sun recently made software patents available for use by open source developers. But its patent grant came with strings attached: The 1,600-some patents may only be used under Sun's Common Development and Distribution License, which is incompatible with the General Public License which governs Linux, among other things.
So while claiming to make the patents available to open source developers, Sun can sue folks who work on Linux rather than Solaris. The irony here is that Sun's open source license is derived from the licence used for Mozilla, which you can see here.
But Mozilla's developers have made most of their software available under the GPL (which you can see here), as well as under terms of their own licence. If Sun wants to be a partner in the open source community, then shutting out the Linux developers isn't a good start.
Contrast that with IBM's recent patent grant. Big Blue made available patents for use under any of the more than 50 open source licences that were recognized by the Open Source Initiative as of 11 January.
Talkback
Software patents are like legal weapons which only rich boys can buy lots of. Very democratic, innovation boosting and local economy improving for sure. Not!
Will software patents threaten your business?
Well, what have you seen and heard so far that ensures that software patents won't be turned against you (e.g.: simply because the first court hearing would invalidate the software patent demand against you)? You see, there's a world of uncertainty between the words "we won't" and "we can't".
I've yet to hear a good reason why the current system (copyrights) is so broken beyond repair that it can't be fixed and certainly is suddenly not good enough anymore.
And I've yet to hear a good reason why pre-law 'software patents' are already being handed out to anyone with a large enough bag of money. What's wrong with invalidating all of those and do a solid review of today's patent awarding practices first?
In all, this whole software patent mess seems to have great potential to turn into a EU level PatentGate. At the very least there are a few politicians here and there that have some explaining to do concerning their code of conduct. And especially how independant and professional their advisors really are.
Stagnation not Innovation.
Why hire a programmer to implement a well understood design pattern solution to your information processing needs when you can pay yearly for software that doesn't yet fully work (but version 2.0 will fix these bugs / implement those features) ?
Many Software Patents though not yet legal have already been granted in the U.K. Why?
Britain should pay software taxes to the U.S. for the right to operate all our machines and access our data. Ridiculous? It already works this way my friend.
All the talk by proponents of software patents is about the supposed benefit to large companies who are the only people who can afford the huge legal fees.
Surely it is the function of government to protect my right as a qualified software engineer to practice my profession unhindered by restrictive practices promoted by the lawyers in the Patent Office. It is clear from the information published by the Patent Office that they have no understanding of software development.
Surely the government should employ a Chief Software Engineer to give them some proper technical advice. While he or she is at it they could tackle scandal of the the vast sums of taxpayers' money wasted on failed It system. Some elementary systems analysis and proper quality control procedures would not come amiss.