The proposed operating-system migration of the City of Munich’s 14,000 desktops from Microsoft to Linux was placed in jeopardy Friday, when a Munich alderman petitioned the Bavarian city’s mayor to examine the status of software patents in the European Community. The issue was raised by Green Party Alderman Jens Muehlhaus, who warned that patent issues could grind some of the city’s departments to a halt in the future. The issue involves a proposed directive on software patents that is being considered by various European governments, including Germany, France, and the U.K.
Windows-To-Linux Migration Hits Speed Bump In Munich
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSAlert.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Seems to be a wise motion. Governments ought to enforce their own laws shouldn’t they?
Judging by the article’s own description of who the petitioners are, I’d say that their goal is not to stop the migration, but rather to point out to the EU how ridiculous their proposed patent laws are.
I know that the policy here on OSAlert is to simply quote the first paragraph of the linked article, but in cases such as this I think a better abstract should have been written to at least let us know that the two people who raised the issue were open-source supporters.
I do not see how choosing Linux is any different from choosing any software. Maybe this is a good excuse to bring up the mess that software patents would cause, but it certainly should not stop the use of Linux or any other software.
Patents….
No matter what OS people use this could happen including M$ just think if IBM filed patents agents M$ I am sure they have a few that violate IBM’s stock pile does this mean any country won’t use M$ software.. Because it could bring things grinding to a halt..
All the things MS never invented created even stole.. Abused others technology and really the law seem stacked in their favor… How?
All the things MS never invented created even stole.. Abused others technology and really the law seem stacked in their favor… How?
Are people and other companies going to be dictated to like this…? U can only use M$ software… this has been going on far too long…
Do I have to use a Sony phone or Dlink hub or Philips TV or any number of alternatives…? Software is about ones creative thinking not some mines substance from Pluto..
Not necessarily. Software patents are important issues that have to be dealt with, and in many countries in the EU, its currently pretty much a ‘grey area’. I don’t think MS has anything to do with this seeing as MS software isn’t immune to patent infringement either. Remember the MS vs Timeline case where Timeline accused MS of infringing on their patents with SQL Server. More on this can be found at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/02/20/sql_server_developers_face_…
IMHO, the guy is raising a genuine concern. Especially in light of the SCO fiasco.
Actually, the context for this is rather different. What the Green Party is trying to do is point to the stupidity of software patents and thereby get the German government to adopt a consistent policy on the issue by raising the issue of software patents with the European Commission.
I have it on good word that the migration is moving forward. This is just sensationalist journalism at it worst.
I am led to believe that BSD is free of patent encumberances. Anyone know if that is true???
Software patents are ludicrous, but if you follow the patent debate and the amount of nonsense that has been “patented”, no OS can claim to be patent free.
To learn more about patents,listen to this:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/audio/audio.html#WMUPAT2003
This is a wise play by the German Green Party, given that the Linux migration in Munich has recently been supported by yet a second round of votes. The key here is that the majority want a smooth migration away from closed software platforms, but the law is moving in the opposite direction.
Perhaps the EU got it wrong when they adopted software patents?
Is this a real issue or is Mueller using the Munich project as leverage? OpenOffice and Mozilla are mentioned. Are they using patented technology? I wouldn’t think so.
Is he thinking of future patents – like MS introducing patented technology that becomes essential but is only compatible with MS products – well, then we have a hostage situation as long as MS is a monopoly. You can either give in e.g. switch back to MS products or not e.g. don’t grant/acknowledge patents on software.
As time goes by and Linux picks up steam and MS files more and more patents I think we’ll see some clashes where MS will playing todays role of SCO.
All this and much else is only a problem because MS is a monopoly. Otherwise I’m all for patents as reward for the research investment. But I also have a feeling that too many patents are being granted in these times in this area.
Take the case not long of EOLAS suing MS for infringement on their patent on the technology of the browser plugin. I think the patent was revoked and because of the size of the implications. But that patent should never have been granted in the first place. What’s patentable about it?
OpenOffice and Mozilla are mentioned. Are they using patented technology? I wouldn’t think so.
At this point you can actually guarantee the opposite.
With the number of patents held by various companies you’re pretty much going to be breaking one any time you write something more complex than “Hello World!”
The question therefore shouldn’t be “Are they breaking any patents?” it should be “Are they breaking any patents which would actually hold up in a law suit?”
There definitely needs to be some sort of better review process for dubious patents outside of a court case (In all countries where they apply). Something that can actually keep pace with the number of patent applications. Otherwise it just takes too long (One court case per patent, wake me up next century :>) and meanwhile developers are prevented from leveraging techniques they should rightfully be able to use.
> Is this a real issue or is Mueller using the Munich project as leverage?
I’m pretty sure he is using the Munich project as leverage, but I think it’s actually a smart move. The Munich Linux project is quite present in the non-IT press, so it’s a good way to try to get into media attention.
The situation is a bit complicated. The Green Party is strictly against software patents. The Socialdemocrats, who form the federal government together with the Greens, have recently switched to a pro-patent attitude (after a year of heavy lobbying of the software industry). The coalition certainly won’t break over such a minor issue like software patents (“minor” from the politicans viewpoint), but the Greens are currently trying to get the topic to public attention. The German non-IT press isn’t really interested in this issue, but the Munich Linux migration story made it into the local press. So trying to get the press attention using the Munich project as leverage is a quite fancy move.
I don’t see how patents should have any special impact on the Munich migration project going beyond the general impact it has on *all* IT business. But I suppose that isn’t the real point. The real point is, with the headline “Munich & Linux” you get more attention.
OpenOffice and Mozilla are mentioned. Are they using patented technology? I wouldn’t think so.
Mozilla is well known for its tab support.
Tabs are patented technology.
PS:
Mozilla also has entries for Undo/Redo in the Edit menu.
Patented.
The download manager of Mozilla displays a progress bar.
Also patented.
And there are a number of patents on archieving email.
It’s pretty likely that Mozilla infringes on some of those.
There are also modal dialogs. Quite possibly they infringe on Adobes patents on floating windows.
Bottom line: You can’t offer a consumer application wo infringing on patents.
This is not about Munich, this is about software patents. Jens Mühlhaus uses the high-profile migration project in Munich as an example to show how dangerous software patents in Europe would be. There are already several thousands of software patents registered in the EU, but they are not enforceable yet. Now it seems that some forces within the EU want software patents just like in the US. Fortunatley, quite a lot of people are already aware of the danger and it’s not quite sure whether or not software patents become possible (valid, enforceable) in the EU.
Very wise move against the patents decision.
Munich is going for open-source (as well as other cities in Germany in the near future, I guess). If Munich can convince the German authorities not to support the patents anymore because of this threat, the whole law is probably doomed in Europe. There are 3 big countries: the UK, Germany and France. France could go for Mandrake. Leaves only the UK with an intrest in the patents. Belgium backs up Germany and France when UK is involved after Iraq and the election of the new chairman (UK voted against Belgium). Eastern European countries will not favor patents either since Open Source is important to them. They have no grip on proprietary software (all US) so supporting open source is favorable ….
So, I think the patent law and risks to that is well under control now. I feel confident that the law won’t pass anymore.
would people not think that if linux and patent problems come up time and time again in the head lines then its linux that has the problems and not all software..
MS can make cases last ten years and then claim no relivence on current software.. or splash a bit of money around and make them disapear…
“Bottom line: You can’t offer a consumer application wo infringing on patents.”
No doubt in my mind you are correct. I believe the same to be true with operating systems, applications, and very simple tiny items we all take for granted.
The real issue is IF they will ever be enforced by the patent holder, and will it stand up as valid at the time when it is reviewed.
In my opinion most of the patents held by MS, IBM, and the really large players will never be enforced. Much of what they patent is nothing more than self-defense from the small fish trolling for cash.
In recent history nearly all of the patent suits have been brought by very small companies searching for a handout from MS, or people like SCO attempting to sue their way to windfall profit.
Open source “currently” enjoys the luxury of being nearly exempt from these “small fish” type suits as there is simply no cash to be had. This “honeymoon” will come to an end when a large commercial Linux vendor gains deep pockets.
The vote in europe for softpatents is shrouded by much deception, political mismanagement or outright lies.
1) The voice of the people, namely that of the european parliament was totally ignored.
2) In countries like germany it was assured beforehand that there would be a vote against, but the minister voted for the patents.
3) In holland it was even worse, minister Brinkhorst first misinformed the dutch parliament – and blamed it on an “error of the typewriter” – then he was recalled by the dutch parliament, but still did not change his vote. Something which would be fatal to someones political career in most other cases. His own party promised before the elections that they were harsly against softpatents, so a deception of the electorate was performed as well. The irony is that the minister displaying this undemocratic behaviour belongs to a party called “Democrats ’66”.
Let’s hope an end is put to this kind of behaviour, because it will be fatal to europe’s innovation. People in legislative jobs will be the only ones benefiting from this.
Software Patents may seem ludicrous but they are a necesary evil. I disagree with the GNU guys and other free software advocates when they say to abolish software patents. IP rights need to be respected and if it someones owns the patent come to a licensing agreement, if you disagree with the patent and think it needs to be overturned because of prior art then report it, roll your dice and see if you win.
if you disagree with the patent and think it needs to be overturned because of prior art then report it, roll your dice and see if you win.
… and invest several hundred thousand dollars in a lawsuit – if you can.
In principle I don’t think software patents are ludicrous. Patents exists in other area’s of life – why not also software?
But a patent on browser tabs (see Jeti’s post) – that is ludicrous. A patent on mp3 – that’s reasonable. What’s the difference? R&D costs. These examples are clear enough. Others won’t be and who can decide?
The advocates (lobbyists) will say – well, if you do not allow patents then evolution will come to screeching halt.
Would no patents have resulted in no browser tabs? I don’t think so. Did the “inventor” of browser tabs (Opera) incur costs with the development? I don’t think so.
Would no patents have resulted in no mp3? Likely. Did the inventor of mp3 (Frauenhofer) incur costs with the development. I would think so (in figuring out what frequencies the human ear can/cannot hear and the compression algorithm).
In general I think the criterion for patentability has something to do with – what comes easy should go easy and visa versa. Maybe the patenter should document research expenses. But that’ll be cheated with too.
It’s also a cultural difference across the Atlantic. The get-something-for-nothing aspect is weighted differently.
Software is a evolutionary process. It is very rare that someone will come up with something new. Most software is based on a long history of previous ideas that were based in turn on previous ones. Software is extermely complex and embodies tons of different concepts. Real world patents cover mechanisms that are thousands of times simpler then the average computer program. Now try to think about keeping track of what parts of your program that might be covered by a patent. Have you ever read a patent? It’s practically impossible to read and usually requires the work of a full time patent lawerer to sort through the mess. So as a result, most companies just ignore the patents and cross their fingers. The companies that do pay attention, try to collect as many patents as possible to use as “defense”. They consider it a cost of doing business. Whenever a rival company stands up and fires a patent at them, they can fire one back and this usually results in some sort of agreement between the two. But your average small time patent holder, will only home a few patents, so when he jumps up and fires his patent at a large company they can fire back w/ multiple of their own. Patent lawyers try to give you the idea that patents protect the small time inventer, but which small time inventer can afford the hundreds of the thousands of dollars a patent claim would cost? So while patents may seem to be based on a high concept, who are they actually benefitting?
“Would no patents have resulted in no mp3? Likely. Did the inventor of mp3 (Frauenhofer) incur costs with the development. I would think so (in figuring out what frequencies the human ear can/cannot hear and the compression algorithm).”
It may not have resulted in something the was named mp3, it would have no doubt have resulted in something similar. It is an obvious idea to compress audio.
Patents exists in other area’s of life – why not also software?
I can give you two good reasons:
1. Software patents in the US are not limited to implementations. They are more often than not patents on ideas. Also, specific implementation are already protected by copyright.
2. Patents only make sense if you can enforce them. With software, it can be pretty hard to prove that someone is making use of your patented algorithm. Therefore, real inventions in computer sciences typically are not patented, but kept as trade secrets.
“if you disagree with the patent and think it needs to be overturned because of prior art then report it, roll your dice and see if you win.”
… and invest several hundred thousand dollars in a lawsuit – if you can.
Actually, unless I’m mistaken I think it’s up to the patent holder to prove its validity in a court of law if there is infringement.
That’s the thing with patents: it’s very easy (if a bit expensive) to be granted frivolous patents, it’s a lot harder to defend those patents in court.
The problem is that it’s almost impossible to develop new software without infringing on someone’s patent. Even progress bars are patented…however, infringing on a patent doesn’t mean you’re in trouble. Since most software patents are frivolous and/or invalid due to prior art, chances are the infringed party won’t even try to sue you.
Roberto
IP rights need to be respected
They are. It’s called copyright. Software patents should either be abolished, or they should only last for six months to a year. Patents were devised for “traditional” inventions, unfortunately the world has changed a lot since the patent system was introduced, and it has not kept up with the pace of technological development.
Fortunately, it looks as if Software Patents may yet be declared invalid in Europe…this was a very shrewd move on the part of the Green alderman.
Atleast in America, where the loser does not pay any part of the plaintiff’s legal cost, it’s vastly cheaper to find another way of doing something, or just dropping a project altoghther then fighting to have a patent over-turned. It also takes years, and by the time a case is settled, the plaintiff could go out of business.
“IP rights need to be respected”
IP stands for Intellectual Property. It is an outright silly term, referring to nothing and everything at the same time. Nowhere in the law is this term to be found and if you used it in a court, you would be laughted out of the building.
There are three types common monopolies protected by the government. Patents. Copyrights. Trademarks. We happen to be talking about patents.