PureBasic Forums - English

Google found guilty of patent infringement for using Linux

• http://www.itworld.com/software/158233/ ... sing-linux

If this stands up on appeal it could kill Linux as it goes after elements of the kernel.

In Europe (as in many parts of the world outside the USA) "programs for computers" are not patentable.

The functionality in question hardly seems a deal-breaker for Linux anyway.

Patent law outside the USA is irrelevant.

If a company as big as Google and with their ability to hire top-notch attorneys lost in court on an issue related to the Linux kernel, what chance do you think the myriad suppliers of free versions of Linux or even Canonical will have? Red Hat was even involved in the defense so they obviously take it seriously.

This article explains why it's a big deal.

• http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/ ... tent-case/

And, while rewriting the kernel might fix it going forward, it will not relieve anyone for any previous infringement.

Interesting article, guess there'll be a few large US companies diving for cover
It's to easy to get patents in the US and often for questionable things.
Like apple and it's "sphincter" pinch zoom or Google for voice searches

I agree that US patent law needs revision but that's not the issue.

I'm curious why this topic was moved to Off Topic.

Here is a very thorough analysis...

• http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/04 ... le-in.html

dhouston wrote:Patent law outside the USA is irrelevant.

If a company as big as Google and with their ability to hire top-notch attorneys lost in court on an issue related to the Linux kernel, what chance do you think the myriad suppliers of free versions of Linux or even Canonical will have? Red Hat was even involved in the defense so they obviously take it seriously.

To purveyors of Linux based products in the American market I don't doubt American law is a big deal but I'm sure the rest of the world wont care much, it's just the usual piss and wind that comes out of American courts.

dhouston wrote:This article explains why it's a big deal.

• http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/ ... tent-case/

And, while rewriting the kernel might fix it going forward, it will not relieve anyone for any previous infringement.

Nope, it's still not looking like a big deal to me.

It's a bit of a worry they couldn't invalidate the patent.

The so called innovation is really about culling out expired time stamped entries from a linked list which is clearly prior art.
the chaining of a hash table is irrelevant from an algorithmic point of view.

Maybe Goggles defense should have included a game of jeopardy
What is a particle engine?
considering that nodes may be expired on time, distance and or color
How long have they been around?
At least 1983
There will likely be dozens of examples from the 70's and 80's using similar strategies.

the.weavster wrote:In Europe (as in many parts of the world outside the USA) "programs for computers" are not patentable.

Not the full truth. Algorithms, which are part of a patent containing a technical invention beside it are patentable as all parts of the patent are secured then. It might also work if you describe the algorithm in a certain way inside the claims (it must contain a technical goal which is reached through the algorithm e.g.).

And, there are treaties between the US and most industrialized countries which make US patents (even as silly as a bigger tennis racquet) enforceable throughout most of the world - wherever Linux is likely to be in use.

DarkDragon wrote:

the.weavster wrote:In Europe (as in many parts of the world outside the USA) "programs for computers" are not patentable.

Not the full truth. Algorithms, which are part of a patent containing a technical invention beside it are patentable as all parts of the patent are secured then.

Point taken, and to be fair that seems a fairly reasonable criteria.

dhouston wrote:And, there are treaties between the US and most industrialized countries which make US patents (even as silly as a bigger tennis racquet) enforceable throughout most of the world

Just quickly Googled that and I haven't found anything to suggest you're right, in fact everything I've found suggests patents are territorial and offer no protection outside the issuing country. There is an agreement between EU countries that offers the opportunity of a Europe wide patent but I've found nothing to suggest US patents hold any sway in Europe.

I think this is a pretty good summary of the absurdity of what's happened here: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/i ... ision/8736

the.weavster wrote:Just quickly Googled that and I haven't found anything to suggest you're right, in fact everything I've found suggests patents are territorial and offer no protection outside the issuing country. There is an agreement between EU countries that offers the opportunity of a Europe wide patent but I've found nothing to suggest US patents hold any sway in Europe.

• http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/index.html
  http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/treaty/about.html

Plus there have long been bilateral treaties between the US and individual countries dealing with IP protection.

I think this is a pretty good summary of the absurdity of what's happened here: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/i ... ision/8736

It doesn't much matter what you think of the decision - it is what it is and many companies will be affected. Most will find it cheaper and easier to pay for a license. TomTom was sued by MS for the way the Linux kernel infringes on FAT32 patents. They settled by paying MS a license fee.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._TomTom

And, as this chart shows, software patents are allowed in most European countries.

• http://softwareprotection.com/chart.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_infringement

Patents are territorial, and infringement is only possible in a country where a patent is in force.

This also seems to concur with Florian Mueller's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florian_M%C3%BCller) view of the situation, he told the BBC:
"The implication here is really that there is a huge number of Linux users who will be required to pay royalties if this patent holder knocks on their doors in the US."

And, as this chart shows, software patents are allowed in most European countries.

• http://softwareprotection.com/chart.htm

DarkDragon already clarified that point, the countries marked EPC in that list do not have software patents in the way America understands them (Read the wiki about Florian Meuller above). This would not be patentable in Europe as "programs for computers" are "non-inventions" and as such are excluded from being patentable.

On top of all that apparently it's only 30 lines of code anyway so this non-issue will be cleared up very quickly one way or another.

the.weavster wrote:On top of all that apparently it's only 30 lines of code anyway so this non-issue will be cleared up very quickly one way or another.

Wow! $5,000,000 a non-issue? You must have very deep pockets.

Patent litigation in general is on the rise, in what is becoming a lucrative endeavor. Ocean Tomo, a Chicago-based merchant bank that tracks the intellectual-property market, values the licensing market at as much as $500 billion.

• http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 19382.html

Anyway, changing the code at issue does absolutely nothing to insulate past infringement from legal action.