RE: IBM and Patents
Ken, I assume you mean a list of patents that are owned by IBM and that cover code that has been GPL'd (in other words, patents that are arguably licensed to users and distributors of the GPL'd code). I don't think such a list exists and it's my guess that even if it did exist internally, IBM would not release it. First, it would be really difficult to make an accurate list and second, making such a list public would have too many negative legal consequences on the enforcability of the patents in non-GPL situations. If anyone has ever seen such a list (originating from IBM), I'd sure love to see it. Laura Majerus Fenwick West LLP Mountain View, CA -Original Message- From: Ken Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sun Feb 01 15:48:09 2004 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:IBM and Patents Hello, Does anybody know whey I can get a list of IBM patents that have been GPL'ed? kb -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 ATTENTION The information contained in this message may be legally privileged and confidential. It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and/or Fenwick West LLP by telephone at (650) 988-8500 and delete or destroy any copy of this message. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Intel's proposed BSD + Patent License
I'll jump in here, not to defend or explain the patent system (heaven forfend I even try that on this list!), but to point out that 35 U.S.C. sect. 273 offers some potential relief in the situation you describe. It's intended to provide a defense to people who were commercially using a patented business method more than a year prior to the patent's filing. It's a confusing and complicated law and has not seen wide use (yet). Laura A. Majerus Fenwick West LLP 2 Palo Alto Square Palo Alto, CA 94306 Phone: 650-858-7152 Fax:650-494-1417 http://www.fenwick.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 6:25 PM Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Intel's proposed BSD + Patent License On Tue, 30 October 2001, Russell Nelson wrote: Essentially, we are all of us completely and totally screwed by the patent system. If I invent something that you have put into your (unpublished -- at least as far as the patent system is concerned) code for decades, and patent it, I 0WN J00. Doesn't matter if you're IBM and I'm Joe Blow, or vice-versa even. given: http://www.nolo.com/encyclopedia/faqs/pts/pct3.html#FAQ-294 =Patents must be novel (that is, it must be different from all =previous inventions in some important way). = =Patents must be nonobvious (a surprising and significant development) =to somebody who understands the technical field of the invention. I don't see how you could patent something that I've had in code for decades. It's neither nonobvious nor novel. Granted, software patents can be a pain (Some perl/tk widgets had to have functionality ripped out because they supported a patented image format) and, IMHO, stupid (the one-click patent from days gone by) but has the scenario you described actually happened? (i.e. decades old code getting patented out from under someone) Greg -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: MSFT and GNU questions
I'd also point out that, contrary to the FUD promoted by MS, companies who may be uncomfortable getting ALL their legal advice from discussion lists such as this, can increasingly turn to traditional law firms for knowledgeable, clueful advice. I know that there are several silicon valley IP lawyers on this list, and that all would be happy to advise on the gpl and other open source licenses. Not all lawyers are knee-jerk opponents of open source. Laura A. Majerus Fenwick West LLP 2 Palo Alto Square Palo Alto, CA 94306 Phone: 650-858-7152 Fax:650-494-1417 http://www.fenwick.com -Original Message- From: Karsten M. Self [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 3:05 PM To: License-Discuss list Subject: MSFT and GNU questions One of the things to emerge from the ongoing MSFT free software / GPL FUD of recent weeks was the pump-priming document that Wagg-Ed put out to journalists (see The New York Times, The Register, and others, for stories -- Markoff and Orlowski respectively). Among the questions raised was the perennial where do you turn for advice on the GPL. Thought occurs to me is that this group, FSB, and possibly gnu.misc.discuss could be promoted more heavily as precisely such a resource, with an emphasis on the fact that the information offered reflects general understanding but not legal advice on licensing. Still, a useful service, and, hey, we've already got the infrasctructure in place. Also speaks to Tim O'Reilly's recent point about taking advantage of opportunities. I suppose the operational question is -- how do we get the word out and promote these resources further? Not to mention how do we manage our own prickley dispositions in dealing with those to whom free software concepts are novel, strange, and foreign. Thoughts? -- Karsten M. Self [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of Gestalt don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ http://www.kuro5hin.org Disclaimer: http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/
RE: Subscription/Service Fees - OSD Intent
I'm collecting information on gpl disputes that have been settled amicably (or at least settled out of court). "Plenty of companies" is a bit vague. Pointers anyone? Laura Majerus -Original Message- From: Ben Tilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 11:31 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Subscription/Service Fees - OSD Intent ... In the case of Open Source licenses, however, this stuff is too new for there to be any value in simply sticking with bad language. I did a search of Lexis recently and could not find a single case interpreting the GNU GPL or the Mozilla GL. There is none for the GNU GPL. The resulting uncertainty is often branded as a weakness. But IMHO it should be viewed as a strength. Plenty of companies who were not particularly friendly to the GPL have been challenged for GPL violations. *NOT ONE* (after full review by their lawyers) thought that their odds of winning a case against it was good enough to take it to court. In my books that is pretty reassuring. :-) Cheers, Ben _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
revised GPL?
Does anybody have any information on the status of the next version of the GPL that I have been hearing rumors about? (Sorry in advance about the stupid confidentiality banner!) Laura A. Majerus Fenwick West LLP 2 Palo Alto Square Palo Alto, CA 94306 Phone: 650-858-7152 Fax:650-494-1417 http://www.fenwick.com ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION: The information contained in this message is privileged and confidential. It is intended only to be read by the individual or entity named above or their designee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and/or Fenwick West LLP by telephone at (650) 494-0600 and delete or destroy any copy of this message.
