Supreme Court to rule on patentability of human genes

[horusfalcon]

Think of what would have happened had Linux been patented, copy-protected, copyrighted, etc... where would it be now, and where would we be?

It is   

Copy-protected?  Since when?  (Maybe I've fallen behind the times again...)  Here all this time I thought Linux was copylefted.  (I do realize that certain patents are in the possession of the Linux Foundation... but that's a matter of self-defense, is it not?)

Later On,
D

[Bald Brick]

Think of what would have happened had Linux been patented, copy-protected, copyrighted, etc... where would it be now, and where would we be?

It is   

Copy-protected?  Since when?  (Maybe I've fallen behind the times again...)  Here all this time I thought Linux was copylefted.  (I do realize that certain patents are in the possession of the Linux Foundation... but that's a matter of self-defense, is it not?)

Later On,
D

The Linux developers own the Linux copyrights. So Linux is copy-protected. It is also 'copylefted' because of the licence it's distributed under. You can copy it and use it freely, but if you redistribute it you have to stick to the terms of the GNU General Public License, which would be meaningless in a world without copyright.

[horusfalcon]

Think of what would have happened had Linux been patented, copy-protected, copyrighted, etc... where would it be now, and where would we be?

It is    

Copy-protected?  Since when?  (Maybe I've fallen behind the times again...)  Here all this time I thought Linux was copylefted.  (I do realize that certain patents are in the possession of the Linux Foundation... but that's a matter of self-defense, is it not?)

Later On,
D

The Linux developers own the Linux copyrights. So Linux is copy-protected. It is also 'copylefted' because of the licence it's distributed under. You can copy it and use it freely, but if you redistribute it you have to stick to the terms of the GNU General Public License, which would be meaningless in a world without copyright.

Sure, the Linux developers own the copyrights - that's as it should be.  It's when copyrights are owned by folks who don't have any skin in the game and just want to extract royalties from an unsuspecting public that I take exception (see SCO vs. IBM, for example).  I might have gotten carried away a bit.  Copyright is not always a bad thing.  Here lately, though, I think most of us can agree that patents, and more especially software patents, have become so poorly conceived, so poorly executed, and so pervasive and insidious they are ridiculous.  They are having a stifling effect on innovation in programming, and concentrating power into the hands of a few megacorporations who can afford to gobble up patents to squeeze out the little guys who really do a lot of the creating.

Oops... I didn't make what I meant clear enough with regard to "copy protection".  I'm talking about all the arcane BS that software vendors use that inhibit the legal rights of paying customers to make legal backup copies just so that, ostensibly, they can prevent the making of illegal copies.

I feel this way about it:  if you're fool enough to buy something with copy protection on it and shell out your good money, you got what you paid for - junk!  The only copy-protected software I tolerate is from Allen-Bradley/Rockwell Automation, and I'm moving away from that (since, lately, you gotta be a frackin' cryptographer to get it correctly installed).  There are other vendors out there making PLCs and HMIs that are every bit as functional for maybe a third the cost, and their software packages are cheaper and not copy protected.  (One vendor of note, Red Lion, gives their Crimson HMI and device programming software away - it's Open Source.)

I could go on, but I think I've made my point, and admitted my earlier error.  Thanks for the catch!  (Keep callin' me on my BS, friends!  At least that way I know you're still reading.)

Later ON,
D

[YouCanToo]

Think of what would have happened had Linux been patented, copy-protected, copyrighted, etc... where would it be now, and where would we be?

It is    

Linux itself is not patented but it is copylefted

[Just17]

the world is a big place ......  software patents can be applied in only a small part of it.

[kjpetrie]

Sadly, for FOSS the world is an indivisible place because the freedom to distribute can't be limited to those territories where a particular restriction does not apply. This means it is no longer safe to develop an innovative project as open source because it is likely to have a component that is illegal somewhere.

[Just17]

Sadly, for FOSS the world is an indivisible place because the freedom to distribute can't be limited to those territories where a particular restriction does not apply. This means it is no longer safe to develop an innovative project as open source because it is likely to have a component that is illegal somewhere.

In what manner is it unsafe to develop such a project?

I don't understand.

[Bald Brick]

Sadly, for FOSS the world is an indivisible place because the freedom to distribute can't be limited to those territories where a particular restriction does not apply.

Can't it? It seems to me that section 8 of the GPL, version 2, should make it possible:

.   8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in
certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the
original copyright holder who places the Program under this License
may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding
those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among
countries not thus excluded.  In such case, this License incorporates
the limitation as if written in the body of this License.

Whether permitting distribution in most other countries while excluding the US is a realistic solution -- that is another question. But as the GPL 2 is written it should be possible.

This means it is no longer safe to develop an innovative project as open source because it is likely to have a component that is illegal somewhere.

[Just17]

I am unsure about the implications of the above ......

if I release some software under GPL, I give everyone, regardless where they might be located, the full benefit of the GPL (if I do not restrict it as BB mentions)

Having done that, why should I be bothered about software patents in the USA?

.....  or is the implication that only a citizen/resident of the USA would need to include the restriction?

...  a bit puzzled ...

[kjpetrie]

Just17,

If you wrote the software you infringed the patent, once it reaches the country where the patent applies.

BB,

Doesn't that assume I know in which countries which patents have been infringed? To do that I'd need an army of lawyers an ordinary person could never afford.

[Just17]

Just17,

If you wrote the software you infringed the patent, once it reaches the country where the patent applies.

If so, why should it in any way affect me?
Why should I be concerned?

BB,

Doesn't that assume I know in which countries which patents have been infringed? To do that I'd need an army of lawyers an ordinary person could never afford.

Is there only one country in which software is patented?


I still do not know what you meant by

This means it is no longer safe to develop an innovative project as open source because it is likely to have a component that is illegal somewhere.

[kjpetrie]

Just17,

If you wrote the software you infringed the patent, once it reaches the country where the patent applies.

If so, why should it in any way affect me?
Why should I be concerned?

Because you could be sued very expensively in a country far away you would have to pay a fortune to travel to in order to defend the case.

BB,

Doesn't that assume I know in which countries which patents have been infringed? To do that I'd need an army of lawyers an ordinary person could never afford.

Is there only one country in which software is patented?

Exactly, I would need a list of all those countries because there isn't only one. Worse than that, I would need to be able to know what was patented so I could exclude distribution to only those countries where what I had written included something that has been patented. The USPTO, for instance, does not publish patents to the public or allow public access to the list. Instead they sell the information to dedicated research and legal firms you have to pay to search for you. That means the ordinary person cannot know whether a patent exists in advance. You only find out when you get sued for infringing it.

I still do not know what you meant by

This means it is no longer safe to develop an innovative project as open source because it is likely to have a component that is illegal somewhere.

Safe means safe from being bankrupted by a lawsuit. These patents are so general and numerous it is difficult for anyone developing anything of any size to avoid accidentally infringing them. A system intended to protect people from deliberate copying of an invention now makes it almost impossible to invent anything because it's bound to rely on some technique someone else has already patented.
 Your independently-developed idea is likely to fall within an already patented category.

[Wildman]

This whole thing reminds me of my school days..(5th grade)...Science teacher said once, as you grow and mature, pay attention how we as a species advance through time...You may very well find that as we go we get more and more stupid....seems she may have been correct... What was worse, the History Teacher backed her up. 

[parnote]

This whole thing reminds me of my school days..(5th grade)...Science teacher said once, as you grow and mature, pay attention how we as a species advance through time...You may very well find that as we go we get more and more stupid....seems she may have been correct... What was worse, the History Teacher backed her up. 

+1 ... x 1000!

[Just17]

I would need a list of all those countries because there isn't only one.

I know of only the one, so you might be able to start a list to give me an idea of how many there are that patent software.

Not that it really concerns me

Because you could be sued very expensively in a country far away you would have to pay a fortune to travel to in order to defend the case.

Sorry, but I find that rather funny.

Why would I defend such an idiotic charge? ....  much less spend money to do so!

Safe means safe from being bankrupted by a lawsuit.

It doesn't apply .....  as I am neither a citizen nor a resident of any location which has such asinine laws.

If I release a piece of software from this locale under the GPL, it is up to other locations to stop its distribution within their borders if they do not like it, or if it offends them or for any other reason they might choose, including that of being in breach of one of their patents.

So, unless one is a citizen or resident of one of those countries which patent software, then being in breach of one of the software patents is immaterial.