Patents Role in US/AU Gov't Use of Open Source? 212
An anonymous reader asks: "How do governments (esp. US and Australia) deal with possibility of a patent lawsuit from some company against a specific OSS product, which might be deployed by a given government department? Is there any danger for various (government or not for that matter) agencies being told 'not to use this or that software from now on' because some commercial company might be winning the patent battles in court against this particular piece of software?
I can see how a small business may take such a risk, but government agencies in the US and Australia could be put off by possibility, since the costs associated with migrating to open source and then back would be rather extreme (note that we are not talking about Europe which has different take on Software Patents and consequently Munich case is not really a strong example in the US/AU context). Personally I do not like software patents and think that they only inhibit software development processes, but how would Slashdot community reason for government-wide adoption of OSS in view of possible trouble with patents?"
Five words (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Five words (one corrected) (Score:2, Interesting)
So far, there is no such thing as eminent domain for intellectual property. In fact, the Supreme Court ruled that a state may not break patents in Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd. v. College Sav. Bank (527 U.S. 627, 119 S.Ct. 2199)
That's not to say that that policy could change, however. This article explains: http://www.prosp [prospect.org]
Re:Five words (one corrected) (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is bizarre, since the state can deprive a person of his home under the doctrine, but not IP, which can be duplicated.
I guess if you really think about it, it kind of makes sense though. People use their homes to live in, and if the state needs the land for a highway, they're supposed to pay a fair market price. The thing about "intellectual property" is the primary thing you do with it is sell it or license it's use. So I guess in theory rights to the "property" should be for sale, so the government could just buy them in some form if it needs them.
Of course, this ignores the phenomenon of the "technology firm", which sells nothing and makes money by suing.
Finally, "Intellectual Property" is one of those "have you stopped beating your wife" frame-the-debate terms. If an idea can be owned, then the government should pay for its use. But there is another view that patents are just monopolies granted on the exploitation of ideas for the public good -- like the monopolies granted to the water company or electric company. In that case, the government could simply exempt public uses of an idea from the patent monopoly.
Re:Five words (one corrected) (Score:2)
"national security and a state of emergency" should get around it enough.
Re:Five words (one corrected) (Score:2)
Like with all monopolies costs will rise to what the market can bear, and so it's not really useful to blame the pharmaceuticals; they're operating within the economic logic of the current patent legislation.
From a free market point of view, the problem with all current intellectual monopoly legislation is that the monopoly power is extended throughout an entire enterprise. With such legislatio
Re:Five words (another one corrected) (Score:2)
Re:Five words (another one corrected) (Score:2)
And Steve Irwin.
Ask Slashdot: I'm hungry (and other questions) (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ask Slashdot: I'm hungry (and other questions) (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Ask Slashdot: I'm hungry (and other questions) (Score:2)
Re:Ask Slashdot: I'm hungry (and other questions) (Score:2, Funny)
What do you do when you are hungry and more importantly, is it open source?
Good question! When I'm hungry, usually I like to eat whatever Cheetos, Dr. Pepper, Doritos, French Fries and Pizza. These are all CLOSED source, but food is nowhere NEAR as important
Re:Ask Slashdot: I'm hungry (and other questions) (Score:2)
DrPepper is closed source indeed (jus' like Coke), no idea if Cheetos or Doritos are open source, but who'd want to eat that anyway?
Fact is, french fries and pizza are 100% genuine open source food.
Re:Ask Slashdot: I'm hungry (and other questions) (Score:2)
I forgot to add that, even though they're open source, their licenses is BSD-compliant, not GPL-compliant: while the source is avaible, YOU don't have to disclose your own modified source if you don't want to.
Re:Ask Slashdot: I'm hungry (and other questions) (Score:2)
Google and Apple are not involved in any way.
Any my degree is in History. Therefore I say, History, or Irish Literature, or for that matter, get a nice degree in linguistics or philology
No that is not a typo, I said philology, not philosophy.... Actually philology must be one of the most technically demanding (if of questionably ut
Usually in these kind of lawsuits... (Score:5, Insightful)
And the Government of the United States of America has a HELL of a lot more lawyers than any corporation.
Re:Usually in these kind of lawsuits... (Score:1)
Re:Usually in these kind of lawsuits... (Score:2)
Re:Usually in these kind of lawsuits... (Score:2, Insightful)
You're forgetting that the US Government has the monopoly on force
Re:Usually in these kind of lawsuits... (Score:2)
Re:Usually in these kind of lawsuits... (Score:2)
Re:Usually in these kind of lawsuits... (Score:2)
I'm going to have to ask for some sort of basis for that statement. Before you answer, might I suggest you skim Part III of The Leviathan: OF A CHRISTIAN COMMONWEALTH.
In any case, let me assure you that you are not the only one who is concerned, but that I also believe such concerns are, at present, overblown. Surely if freedom of conscience is to have any meaning, it must mean the freedom to base one's moral views on
Re:Usually in these kind of lawsuits... (Score:2)
Both corporations and patents are creations of government in the first place. There's also the magic words "national security".
Re:Usually in these kind of lawsuits... (Score:2)
Re:Usually in these kind of lawsuits... (Score:2)
Perhaps you should review the history of the last Micorsoft Monopoly case. While they Government Lawyers won the case, Microsoft clearly won the war.
This was a turning point in my perception of American Government.
Governments are sovereign and immune. (Score:2, Insightful)
But when when governments are involved, it's irrelevant.
If a patent liability becomes a nuisance, governments everywhere (including those of the US and Australia) simply claim sovereignty as a means of giving someone abroad the finger, or they claim national interest as a means of silencing internal claims. The latter especially is extremely common.
Governments and politicians may be the scum of the earth, but in this case, patent
Re:Usually in these kind of lawsuits... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Usually in these kind of lawsuits... (Score:4, Interesting)
The governments (US and AU) do not want to win. They do not want to use OSS. They want to keep funneling money from me, you, and every other citizen of the 52 states into the coffers of their friends and supporters.
There will be isolated areas where IT departments or individuals with a clue buck this trend, but the bulk of policymakers will always endeavor to support the deep pockets of those who finance their campaigns and employ them when they leave politics.
They will do this to ensure the pockets remain deep.
Re:Usually in these kind of lawsuits... (Score:2)
Re:Usually in these kind of lawsuits... (Score:2)
The AU govenment (of either party) has shown it is more than willing to institutionalise corruption.
Re:Usually in these kind of lawsuits... (Score:2)
Re:Usually in these kind of lawsuits... (Score:2)
The UK is traditionally known as the 51st state;
The The, from the Infected album, 1986
Re:Usually in these kind of lawsuits... (Score:2)
Bad luck on that one politics , corperations dont tend be as bribable in this context
applies to closed source too (Score:5, Insightful)
Why Is This On Ask Slashdot? (Score:3, Insightful)
Slashdot should leave the legal questions to real lawyers. Let this guy go talk to somebody who actually knows something, instead of some know-it-all schmuck on the Internet.
Re:Why Is This On Ask Slashdot? (Score:2)
Re:Why Is This On Ask Slashdot? (Score:2)
purpose was to spread more FUD. Someone who cares (not I), should go and check where else
this "idea/question" has been viral marketed.
Re:Why Is This On Ask Slashdot? (Score:2)
I would also liek to be able to systemacticaly determin if a product i am using is part of the patten claim. I mean it would make sence now to develope a plan to determine if SCO's claims effected anyth
Re:Why Is This On Ask Slashdot? (Score:2)
Is there actually a good reason why laws should be so complex they cannot be understood.
Slashdot should leave the legal questions to real lawyers.
As if "real lawyers" never get it wrong...
Re:Why Is This On Ask Slashdot? (Score:2)
Have you ever called a plumber, or taken your car to a mechanic? Why do you think that lawyers are not necessary?
I think if you studied history, you would find that the legal systems which used ersatz non-lawyers (like the innkeepers in Edo Japan) were so primitive they could be fairly said not to be legal systems at all.
On the other hand, if you looked to France and Germany, they together spent more than a hundred ye
FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:FUD (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:FUD (Score:2)
The government doesn't care (let alone start picking through hundreds of thousands of lines of code looking for potential infringement, as the parent suggests they might do) because they don't get their legal advice here. This is a non-issue that vario
Re:FUD (Score:2)
If a closed source company let you (re)compile the code from assembly instructions to perform better on your computer would that all the sudden place them on par with the open source companies?
I don't understand the difference. In both situations you have an entity that provides the software with a claim that they have the rights to provide this software. You have others obtaining and using the software in ways that are legit and legal from entities that provide it with claims that
Re:FUD (Score:2)
Re:FUD (Score:2)
The fundemental difference here is that the process of creating a creditcard size computer for the purpose of enacting transaction wirlessly can be implemented any way you want. But the patten wouldf encompass anyhtign that was implemented were the copy right would just encompass a certain way
Re:FUD (Score:2)
Replace "closed source software" with Microsoft software. Now consider what happens when MS violates someones patent - MS buys them and the issue goes away. Now who has a greater chance of being a target? Sorry, just playing devils advocate here.
Re:FUD (Score:2)
Re:FUD (Score:2)
Hmmm. Actually, this possibility is probably a negative factor in your ability to defend against patent infringement cases. If you are running a piece of closed source software that infringes somebody's patents, and they decide to sue you over it (a weird choice, but there you go), your defence is simple: "I do not know how this software works, there is no reasonably easy
From Armeggedon (the movie) (Score:5, Funny)
Bruce Willis: "What, did you raid the patent office and steal my designs?"
The Man: "Yep"
The biger is always right (Score:1)
Has there been successful patent litigation (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're going to sue the govt, you'd better have a lot of money. If you're a competitor of open source bringing the suit, how does winning improve your chances of future business with the govt?
Re:Has there been successful patent litigation (Score:2)
in fact... (Score:2)
I read about some cases where DOD used it.
---
Hmm. Couldn't find any reference to it in google under 30 seconds. May I stand corrected?
Re:Has there been successful patent litigation (Score:2)
Use of patented inventions for services of the Crown
55.-(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, any government department and any person authorised in writing by a government department may, for the services of the Crown [..] do any
the same argument applies to commercial software (Score:4, Insightful)
No different than proprietary (Score:5, Insightful)
The only real difference is that a large company who is the target of a patent suit can usually buy enough lawyers to prevent a patent from actually taking effect. But there's no guarantee of that.
You can't sue the government (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:You can't sue the government (Score:4, Informative)
You can sue but not stop the government (Score:2)
It's worth pointing out one feature of this special regime: there are no injunctions available to make the government stop: it's a money issue. So even if a patent holder could legally stop the rest of the OSS world -- hopefully that won't arise -- it couldn't stop the government.
In other countries there are similar special regimes for go
Re:You can't sue the government (Score:2)
Uhh... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Uhh... (Score:2)
> Software? Umm...maybe you don't
> follow U.S. corpolitics?
How did this get modded 'Insightful'? Not only does the U.S. government use open source software, but they sponsor [cougaar.org] it, too.
Re:Of course they do. (Score:2)
I'm not a gpl expert or an expert on anythign for that matter. I do however read the GPL to not consider modifications to be considered being redistributed when deploying it to your organization. This organiization should/would include anyone doing work for you or acting in your interest if the software is being used in that f
US answer (Score:3, Funny)
Re:US answer (Score:3, Funny)
legal risks (Score:1)
Can't Sue (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't think it's anything to worry about though. The real worry is the government wasting taxpayer money on proprietary software and also using closed formats in an "open" government.
Re:Can't Sue (Score:2)
Th
Re:Can't Sue (Score:2)
Depends on the country/government. Here in the UK the 'Government' (that is the elected parliament) can be sued, the Crown (i.e. the Queen/King), however, cannot. As the Crown is the ultimate authority (has a, virtually never used, right of veto) in theory it is the crown which is the Government and the elected members are just advisors. If the entire 'Government' were ever impeached or deposed then it would be the Crown who would directly rule the country until another 'Government' could be chosen. Ind
Sovereign Immunity (Score:3, Informative)
how do governments deal (Score:2)
Please, for the love of God, do some editing! (Score:2)
It's great that someone whose first language isn't English feels confident to submit a story to Slashdot. Obviously the poster uses a language that lacks definite articles. But couldn't the editors tidy the submission up a bit. They do a disservice to us by presenting us with stories in pidgin English, they do a disservice to the poster whose errors are displayed, uncorrected, for all t
Re:Please, for the love of God, do some editing! (Score:2)
I think it's part of the game. The object is to get a Troll posted to the front page. You, apparently, get extra points if it includes FUD and extra-extra points if it contains grammatical errors.
Re:Please, for the love of God, do some editing! (Score:2)
But seriously, do any Intelligent Designists claim that we have been deliberately deceived?
Re:Please, for the love of God, do some editing! (Score:2)
Re:Please, for the love of God, do some editing! (Score:2)
My Japanese lessons start this summer. I hope that if I get to a point where I feel confident to post a story to the front page of a moderated and edited web site in Japanese, the editors will have the decency to tidy up what I write like almost every other news site. There's a big difference between informal conversation like this and posts on the front page of a major web site with hundreds of thousands of readers. It's no wonder geeks ha
Will the government enforce patent against itself? (Score:3, Interesting)
Generally, it is a good idea to avoid picking fights with the people that control all the money, guns, courts, and jails, and are the also the only ones that are enforcing your "Intellectual Property Rights" in the first place. So when the judge tells you "Let's see, your asking me to rule in your favor on something that will cost the goverment billions... that would be the SAME government that is paying my salary?!?" you can pretty much predict what the outcome will be...
Re:Will the government enforce patent against itse (Score:2)
Bullshit! Prove it.
Agent Orange cost them at least 1.57 ass-loads of cash.
American with Disabilities act.
You're wrong.
What is going to happen... (Score:2)
The current problem is one of neith side really wanting to be honest about the nature of software, for that would mean programming would become easy enough to do that most anyone can, and regardless of their knowledge and time cons
Watch that last sentence... (Score:2)
Flip the Script (Score:5, Insightful)
So a better question is "how does an org protect itself from IP interference with IP upon which it depends?", and a good answer is "use OSS instead of proprietary".
Re:Flip the Script (Score:2)
I wonder if, in the case of third party users, the responsibility for not violating patents might extend to the end user BECAUSE of the availability of the code in OS applications. You can hardly hold the user of closed source apps at fault - they supposedly have no idea what's running under the hood. Do users of products with available source code have some sort of 'due diligence' responsibility to ensure the app doesn't violate patents or copyrights? Maybe the EULA should go both ways, so that part of the
Re:Flip the Script (Score:2)
Re:Flip the Script (Score:3, Interesting)
Not that im calling companys who live on patent litegation thieving scum , but for legal reasons im on implying it.
Keeping up appearances (Score:5, Interesting)
I do believe that the Australian Capital Territory Govt has introduced legislation that calls for any new projects to look at OSS alternitives first in all territory related matters. However, being a territory and not a state, the federal government has the power to veto this law at any time.
It is a sad state of affairs that so much of the tax payers money is being used to pay for software licences, when there are free open alternatives. Particularly when in numerous cases they are using off the shelf products that aren't quite what they need but are the closest thing on offer, resulting in hacks and work arounds that are costing more money in govenment employee's wages.
But hey, it's only the tax payer and most of them think that Windows is the best, most secure and most cost effective operating system anyway, so what's the problem?!
Easy. (Score:3, Interesting)
Then look at closed source software; you can't see the code! So I'd say that almost per definition closed software has a greater amount of legal liability than OSS; OSS shows and bares all, closed doesn't. People being people, the guys who can hide will hide.
So it looks to me like you're asking
Are you feeding us
Hello, I'm From Microsoft, And I'm Here To Help (Score:4, Funny)
thoughts (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, should the government adopt OSS, it can always shrewdly deny software patents it believes might lead to legitimate suits against it.
Of course, as was pointed out by others above, it is doubtful that the government would adopt OSS in the forseeable future because... well... do any of us doubt that Micro$oft has the money to buy, among other things, our responsible civic representatives?
Easy (Score:2)
Re:Easy (Score:2)
Immanent: Remaining, operating, existing, in effect.
The term is Eminent Domain.
Thank you.
Do What the US Military Did... (Score:2)
Or, move the whole government to Cuba. I'm sure 48% of the country wouldn't mind that at all...
Chapter 17, Patents Act 1990 (Cth) (Score:2)
The legislative provisisons cited above contain the specific law that applies to the use of patented inventions by the Crown and its agencies, and can be found on ComLaw [comlaw.gov.au].
Oh, and to all those IANALs blabbing about sovereign immunity: go and get an education. The State and its major agencies (the legislature, courts of record, and the Crown or ministers exercising the prerogative powers of the Crown) are immune in the exercise of the particular powers that are or were traditionally exercised by the sovereign
Addendum (Score:2)
Same as if it was proprietary (Score:2)
I really can not see why you think that this is a problem specific to open source. Governments (and most large corporations) are not going to use a free download for anyth
strange question (Score:2)
Patent use by government agencies (Score:2)
Re:What's the difference? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:What's the difference? (Score:2, Insightful)
(GIF, JPEG)
Re:US GOVT (Score:2, Informative)
(a)