Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Software United States News

Patents Role in US/AU Gov't Use of Open Source? 212

Posted by Cliff from the mired-in-red-tape dept.
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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Patents Role in US/AU Gov't Use of Open Source? More

Patents Role in US/AU Gov't Use of Open Source?

Comments Filter:

  • Five words (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Imminent Domain on Intellectual Property
    • Parent means to write "eminent domain," which is the legal theory under which the government can condemn property and forcibly purchase it "for the common good."

      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)

        by hey! ( 33014 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2005 @07:55PM (#12436939) Homepage Journal
        So far, there is no such thing as eminent domain for intellectual property

        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.
        • strangley though, international trade law provides an escape for violating pattens durring emergencies. Canada recently used/abused this for some drug pattens. I asume that any government can make the laws work in thier favor to some extent. If the US should want, they could probably manipulate thing much the same way.

          "national security and a state of emergency" should get around it enough.
      • Eminent domain for patents is pointless tho, as they arent property but rather limited temporary monopoly rights.

        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

  • Ask Slashdot: I'm hungry (and other questions) (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04, 2005 @06:26PM (#12436206)
    Anonymous Coward writes "Once again I woke up today and found that I was hungry. This happens nearly every day. I know there must be something I can do about it, but I have been unable to find anything at Source Forge to help me. So my question to the gigantic Slashdot brain trust is this: What do you do when you are hungry and more importantly, is it open source? If it is not OSS, are there any copyright or patent issues that need to be dealt with? Also, is Google or Apple involved in any way? One more question: What degree should I get?"

  • Usually in these kind of lawsuits... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FireballX301 ( 766274 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2005 @06:28PM (#12436219) Journal
    ...the one with more lawyers will win.

    And the Government of the United States of America has a HELL of a lot more lawyers than any corporation.
    • Unfortunately, government is at the mercy of politics of the moment. Take for example Bush calling the lawyers off MS when he was elected.
    • Only if you consider that the politicians themselves are lawyers. I certainly hope you aren't under the illusion that the US Government has anywhere near the influence and power of large corporations.
      • the US Government has anywhere near the influence and power of large corporations.

        You're forgetting that the US Government has the monopoly on force
        • Your forgetting that the US government is a sub-division of a few powerful corporations.
      • I certainly hope you aren't under the illusion that the US Government has anywhere near the influence and power of large corporations.

        Both corporations and patents are creations of government in the first place. There's also the magic words "national security".
    • The lawyers are unimportant in this case. The gov owns the judges...

    • Governments are sovereign and immune. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Usually in these kind of lawsuits ... the one with more lawyers will win.

      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
    • Lawyers are arbitrary, when you write the laws lawyers only get t o interpret the laws you write. Once any government becomes dependent upon open source and draws industry along with it (for their mutual benefit as well as the benefit of the rest of society), they can simply legislate to protect themselves and us. As far as I know there is no costitutional amendment to protect the rich and insatiably greedy. So the real question is can the rich buy more votes then the smart can take away.
    • the one with more lawyers will win

      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.
      • Why bring AU government into this? It is a very different situation over here. Firstly we don't have software patents (yet?), secondly it is against the law for a politician to accept money from a company. The affect this has is obvious especially in the ethanol dispute, where the government is quite simply ignoring the giant oil companies.
        • It is not against the law for a company to "loan" politicians expensive toys (ie, large plasma screens). It is not against the law for a political party to accept money from a company. It is not against the law for a politician to accept a sinecure when they leave politics.

          The AU govenment (of either party) has shown it is more than willing to institutionalise corruption.
          • it's not against the law but it's an easy way to lose an election. Even when Telstra gave a few Liberal members TVs they lost a huge amount of reputation through it. And it is against the law for a political party to accept money from a company yes.
    • I prefer to think of it as the one more susceptible to bribe will win against the one more susceptible to taking bribes.
      Bad luck on that one politics , corperations dont tend be as bribable in this context

  • applies to closed source too (Score:5, Insightful)

    by P3NIS_CLEAVER ( 860022 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2005 @06:28PM (#12436226) Journal
    The sooner they recognize that the same liability exists with closed source the sooner they will realize that the software patent system is at fault.

  • Why Is This On Ask Slashdot? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04, 2005 @06:29PM (#12436232)
    Seriously, watch the armchair lawyers come out in droves with the "IANAL, but" posts.

    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.
    • It should be ask the US Government, but technically, (in a happy world that doesn't exist anymore) the government is simply a representative of the people. By asking slashdot, their skipping a step and saving time!
    • I could be wrong, but I don't think the purpose of the question was to get an answer. I think its
      purpose was to spread more FUD. Someone who cares (not I), should go and check where else
      this "idea/question" has been viral marketed.
      • Is it more a fud question then a what if question? I have wondered if the discussion of items like this lend answers to situation that might pop up. I wouldn't go as far as claiming it could develope a contingency plan but this is the exact stuff militaries do to estimate the outcome of different situations.

        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
    • Seriously, watch the armchair lawyers come out in droves with the "IANAL, but" posts.

      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...
      • Is there actually a good reason why laws should be so complex they cannot be understood.

        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)

    by Kris_J ( 10111 ) * on Wednesday May 04, 2005 @06:30PM (#12436244) Homepage Journal
    OSS has no greater chance of being the target of a patent, or copyright, lawsuit than closed source software. In fact, any organisation can view the source and make their own risk assessment; something you can't do with closed source software.

    • Re:FUD (Score:2, Interesting)

      by MrAnnoyanceToYou ( 654053 )
      Two words: "Plausible Deniability."

    • Re:FUD (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SanityInAnarchy ( 655584 ) <ninja@slaphack.com> on Wednesday May 04, 2005 @06:35PM (#12436290) Journal
      Amen to that. Also, any organization can prune whatever part of the source is affected, if indeed it is only one part. So open source is actually less vulnerable than closed software -- if the closed software infringes on a patent and the company responsible gets their pants sued off, there's not much the government can do about it.

    • Re:FUD (Score:2)

      by Otter ( 3800 )
      To put it another way: the notion that using a product exposes you to some scary legal risk is absurd, whether the product is open- or closed-source. That's true whatever SCO says, and it's true regardless of what Open Source Risk Management and its crew says.

      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

    • Actually, OSS has a greater chance of being the target of both patent and copyright lawsuits because you can see the source. Any patent or copyright holder can look to see how you're implementing something and sue you if you're infringing. The claims also become much more black and white since the code is out there and it's easy to verify. You can either be SCO or Fraunhofer, whose patents would be infringed upon if the various open source projects out there that implement "their" algorithm were developed i
      • I think you getting patten and copyright mixed up. You don't need to see any source code to see if somethign that was pattened is being copied. A patten protects the process or device not the way it was implemented.

        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
    • "OSS has no greater chance of being the target of a patent, or copyright, lawsuit than closed source software."

      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.

    • In fact, any organisation can view the source and make their own risk assessment; something you can't do with closed source software.

      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)

    by QuantumRiff ( 120817 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2005 @06:30PM (#12436246)
    They walk into a hanger, and see that Nasa and the military has assembled a drill that looks amazingly like something he had come up with..
    Bruce Willis: "What, did you raid the patent office and steal my designs?"
    The Man: "Yep"
  • When it comes to goverments they will always win any battle, at least when it comes from midle-east europe.

  • Has there been successful patent litigation (Score:4, Insightful)

    by winkydink ( 650484 ) * <sv.dude@gmail.com> on Wednesday May 04, 2005 @06:32PM (#12436259) Homepage Journal
    against either government?

    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?

    • Remember that the state has sovereign immunity. You can only sue the state if it consents to be sued. So virtually any victory is ultimately illusory, as it can be undone with legislation.
    • If I'm not mistaken, there was an obscure US law that allowed transferral of patent to the government without any compensation to the authors.

      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?
    • I'm not sure about the legal status in either US or AU, but over here in the UK, the government is specifically exempt from patent law. That's right: patents do not apply to the government, they can use your patented invention for any government related purpose they choose.

      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)

    by bugi ( 8479 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2005 @06:32PM (#12436261)
    Software patents are a grave threat regardless of whether the software is Free or not.

  • No different than proprietary (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dwheeler ( 321049 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2005 @06:34PM (#12436279) Homepage Journal
    This is no different than from the proprietary case. The purpose of a patent is to ensure that the patent-holder can determine who is allowed to implement the idea (including, possibly, no one). A proprietary product isn't necessarily a better risk; a patent-holder might sue a vendor out of a market, and not bother with the OSS implementation. Heck, the patent-holder might BE an OSS vendor (Red Hat holds patents) or favorable to a vendor (IBM holds the most patents).

    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.

  • They tell you this in high school criminal law. The US Government has immunity from lawsuits unless it waives its immunity. In other words, it's immune to lawsuits. Google, and paying attention in class, are your friends.

    • Re:You can't sue the government (Score:4, Informative)

      by alanlke ( 685520 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2005 @07:19PM (#12436626)
      ...unless the government abrogates their right to sovereign immunity by statute:

      28 U.S.C.A. 1498

      (a) Whenever an invention described in and covered by a patent of the United States is used or manufactured by or for the United States without license of the owner thereof or lawful right to use or manufacture the same, the owner's remedy shall be by action against the United States in the United States Court of Federal Claims for the recovery of his reasonable and entire compensation for such use and manufacture. Reasonable and entire compensation shall include the owner's reasonable costs, including reasonable fees for expert witnesses and attorneys, in pursuing the action if the owner is an independent inventor, a nonprofit organization, or an entity that had no more than 500 employees at any time during the 5-year period preceding the use or manufacture of the patented invention by or for the United States. Nothwithstanding [FN1] the preceding sentences, unless the action has been pending for more than 10 years from the time of filing to the time that the owner applies for such costs and fees, reasonable and entire compensation shall not include such costs and fees if the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust.


      • ... because as the parent correctly pointed out, there is a special statute in the US (28 USC 1498) for getting compensation for government use of patented inventions.

        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

  • Uhh... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by demondawn ( 840015 )
    The U.S. Government? Using Open Source Software? Umm...maybe you don't follow U.S. corpolitics?
    • > The U.S. Government? Using Open Source
      > 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.

  • US answer (Score:3, Funny)

    by LittleLebowskiUrbanA ( 619114 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2005 @06:44PM (#12436368) Homepage Journal
    military action of course!
  • Surely any legal problems that may occur would only do so between the software vendor and the patient holder? It would definately be morally wrong (even if not legally) to stop an organisation using a piece of software which has been in the public domain?

  • Can't Sue (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Apreche ( 239272 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2005 @06:46PM (#12436389) Homepage Journal
    AFAIK you can't sue the US government without its permission. At least not in US federal court. They do give their permission often however. But if they really wanted to they could violate GPLs and EULAs left and right and just not let anyone sue them for it.

    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.
    • Pardon? Do you really want to suggest, that you can't sue the government without their explicit permission? I don't live in the US, so maybe I am not to judge. But I thought it was the fundamental right of every citizen to hold the government responsible to the laws laid down by the legislative. It lies in the sole sovereignity of the judical branch to judge whether it is worthwile or not. The executive branch (in other words the government) has no word in it, except in defending itself with its lawyers.

      Th

      • 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)

    by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2005 @06:51PM (#12436417) Journal
    The answer to this question is so obvious. From a legal definition: [lectlaw.com] A doctrine precluding the institution of a suit against the sovereign [government] without its consent.
  • what a stupid question. how do they deal with the same thing in case of commercial software? why is there a difference?

  • esp.[sic] US and Australia
    deal with [sic] possibility
    put off by [sic] possibility
    how would [sic] Slashdot community

    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

  • Will the government enforce patent against itself? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Locke2005 ( 849178 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2005 @07:07PM (#12436515)
    "Uh, hello Area 51? This is the BSA, and we've received a complaint, so we'd like to come in and audit your software licenses... yes, in person. What? Sorry, I can't hear you, that black helicopter outside the window is making so much noise and...(Line disconnected)"

    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...

  • ... is that the truth of the nature of software will have to come to a head. When it does then it will be obvious that software is not of a patentable nature, but rather of a nature that we humans have both a right and duty to improve upon. That of "abstraction creation and use".

    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
  • ...it's a doossey.

  • Flip the Script (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2005 @07:58PM (#12436971) Homepage Journal
    OSS is less exposed to IP claims risks than is proprietary source. Apart from their relative openness, they're equally likely to include proscribed code. But OSS code can be searched by anyone (including suspicious IP owners), and has better code "pedigree" records, also searchable by anyone. Patents are an old form of open source: patented devices are published in enough detail to allow anyone to be sure they're not infringing, before they use a design. OSS under licenses like the GPL are a decentralized version of that publication, without the restrictions on further using the protected property (except so far as to retain that viral, open license).

    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".

    • 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
      • Do consumers have the responsibility for investigating whether *any* property we receive violates the law? Other than being explicitly (or inadvertently) told during the acquisition transaction, I don't believe that we're even responsible for knowing that we've recieved stolen property, like a car. I doubt there's more liability for IP.

    • Re:Flip the Script (Score:3, Interesting)

      by FidelCatsro ( 861135 )
      Not to mention the fact that it's hard to make cash off of litagation against a non-profit organisation .So they are less likely to sue .
      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)

    by Tannii ( 842656 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2005 @08:27PM (#12437198)
    Regardless of whether the Goverments can be sued or not, in an instance such as this, particularly here in Australia I think they would be using the "we could be sued" line as an excuse not to migrate. Firstly, with the M$ propaganda they probably believe switching to OSS will cost more in the long run and secondly because they want to keep up appearences that they have shot themselves in the foot as much as they have the rest of the country by accepting the US IP laws as part of the "FTA."

    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)

    by Mac Degger ( 576336 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2005 @08:46PM (#12437313) Journal
    Lets say that, with people being people, there would be just as much copying of code in both worlds (OSS and closed). But then, remind yourself of the fact that OSS is open; everybody can see what you used and how it's structured (look at the CherryOS debacle)...so OSS has quite a big, legit and pretty much unsurmountable reason to not be copying code.

    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 /. the wrong question...the question you should be asking is 'why did I post a story on /. comparing OSS and closed software, with a question partaining to something (copyright infringment) OSS has inherently no problem with?'

    Are you feeding us /cows FUD?
  • A Microsoft/SCO PR flack asks: "How can I use public forums to help prevent governmental organizations from diverting taxpayer dollars from our coffers? How do governments (esp. US and Australia) deal with legal blackmail that might prevent them from using a specific OSS product, which might be deployed by a given government department? Can I create the perception of danger within various (government or not for that matter) agencies so that they'll be told 'not to use this or that software from now on' because of some virtually non-existant threat of patent battles in court going against this particular piece of software? We've already locked in small business, so they don't count. But, government agencies in the US and Australia have enough clout and a different business rationale, so I need to convince them that they'll get seriously screwed over (note that we haven't rolled the EU on s/w patents, yet). I'm really not a paid flunky for Microsoft/SCO, really, so you show me your FOSS evangelist "play book" that I won't use to craft a workaround in my astroturfing projects?"

  • thoughts (Score:3, Interesting)

    by calavicci ( 880582 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2005 @10:23PM (#12437888)
    OSS has a wonderful resistance to lawsuits in redundancy - multiple items developed independently make it such that it is unlikely that ALL open-source solutions to an issue be susceptible to any given suit. Furthermore, the incomparable ingenuity and swiftness of the open-source community mean that any code found to be in violation has a relatively high probability of being quickly changed (one reason that SCO was so reluctant to identify the specific Linux source "in violation of" their copyright).

    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?
  • They slap an "Imminent Domain" sticker on it and keep right on rolling.
    • Eminent: Outstanding, overshadowing, prominent, overlooking.

      Immanent: Remaining, operating, existing, in effect.

      The term is Eminent Domain.

      Thank you.
  • And move all your software operations to Cuba.

    Or, move the whole government to Cuba. I'm sure 48% of the country wouldn't mind that at all...

  • 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

  • I assume that they would do exactly what they would do if the software was proprietary. They will do any one of:
    1. Pay up
    2. Switch
    3. Fight the claim in court
    4. Use their powers as the government to ignore it
    5. Take insurance or demand an indemnity from their supplier when buying software (obviously this should be done before a claim is brought)

    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

  • Since the OSS community works rather hard to avoid patent trouble I fail to see how using OSS puts any user/incorporator more at risk than using proprietary software. Also, if any entity could afford the legal fights that *might* arise it is the government. If it surfaces in their face maybe it would even motivate them to clean up the patent mess that they created in the first place.
  • The issue of patent use by government agencies in the U.S. has been settled by court cases, and is basically dependent on whether it's a state government or the Federal government. For states, a party can get an injunction to stop them from using a patent, but they can't get monetary damages; in the case of the Federal government, they can get monetary damages but they cannot get an injunction to stop continued use. Now, some of this may have changed but this was the status the last time I heard about the

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close