[lug] Software patents

Jeffrey Haemer jeffrey.haemer at gmail.com
Sun May 31 17:20:58 MDT 2009



I'm not up to speed the discussion either, but appreciate your offering your
perspective.  Plus, I think that person whose name Ken couldn't remember was
you, and I could. :-)

I'm certain he'll appreciate your informed opinion.

Good to hear you're having fun!

On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Jason Haislmaier
<Jason.Haislmaier at hro.com>wrote:

>  Hi Jeffrey.  Hope you are doing well too.  The second round of fatherhood
> is treating me (and my wife) well.  As I have been telling people, while
> Penn is a newborn (and comes with all of those responsibilities attached),
> he has been a really great and good tempered kid (so far).  Less time in my
> schedule, yes, sure.  But a lot of fun so far too.
> The post linked to below is a bit befuddling.  The writer almost seems to
> be crying a bit about what he views as Mono being singled out by anti-Mono
> people who focus on patents with respect to Mono (and Microsoft) and who do
> not give equal treatment to the patents potentially affecting the rest of
> the software industry.  I am not completely up to speed on the discussion
> around software patents pertaining to Mono (owned by Microsoft or otherwise)
> but find it hard to believe that the rhetoric on this topic directed at Mono
> is appreciably greater than against other software application, OS, etc. (I
> would cite Linux as "Exhibit 1" in making this case).
> That said, the frustration expressed by the writer about the risk from
> software patents being very difficult to identify, evaluate, quantify and
> mitigate (or, as he says, "fight") is real.  I would add that this is the
> case not just for open source projects, but for proprietary software
> companies as well (maybe particularly for proprietary software companies as
> they are often viewed as being deeper-pocketed targets for the holders of
> these patents).  We deal with this every day working with our clients who
> are out there developing software, launching new ventures, and otherwise
> working to build their businesses and the economy.  Perhaps ironically, one
> of the primary means these companies often use to "fight" software patents
> is. . . more software patents - filed not to be used offensively but
> defensively in the case of a suit against them (I would cite TomTom's
> defensive countersuit against Microsoft and their defensive membership in
> the OIN immediately in advance of the settlement of the case against them as
> Exhibit 1 in favor of the value of having access to patents for defensive
> purposes - whether you are a corporation or an open source project).
> Of course, fighting fire with fire and filing yet more software patents is
> at best an imperfect cure to the current situation.  As with anything in
> the law, the pace of real change is relatively glacial compared to the need
> for it.  In addition, when change does come, it is often in the form of
> overreaction (which, on another topic, is part of the reason we have an
> issue with software patents to begin with, the overreaction that created the
> current rules in that area to begin with).  My general thought is that
> things are changing for the better - with decisions in the courts and
> elsewhere.  Of course that may not be that great of an answer for a company
> (or open source project) tagged with a software patent infringement suit in
> the meantime, but it is at least hope for the rest of us.
> Feel free to pass this along to the group.
> Thanks, Jason
>   CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE - This e-mail transmission, and any documents,
> files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain information
> that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not read or play this
> transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use
> of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is
> STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please
> immediately notify the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete the
> original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any
> manner. Thank you.
> FEDERAL TAX ADVICE DISCLAIMER We are required by U. S. Treasury Regulations
> to inform you that, to the extent this message includes any federal tax
> advice, this message is not intended or written by the sender to be used,
> and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding federal tax penalties.
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* Jeffrey Haemer [mailto:jeffrey.haemer at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, May 30, 2009 2:52 PM
> *To:* Jason Haislmaier
> *Subject:* Fwd: [lug] Software patents
> He probably means you. :-)
> How's new parenthood?
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Kenneth D Weinert <kenw at quarter-flash.com>
> Date: Sat, May 30, 2009 at 2:33 PM
> Subject: [lug] Software patents
> To: "Boulder (Colorado) Linux Users Group -- General Mailing List" <
> lug at lug.boulder.co.us>
> Hash: SHA1
> There is a recent discussion on the Mono list about software patents and
> Microsoft regarding moonlight and such.
> This was posted as a "rebuttal" to the thread:
> http://www.jprl.com/Blog/archive/development/mono/2009/Jan-19.html
> I'd be interested to hear what our local expert (his name, to my shame,
> has completely gone out of my head) has to say - if he's interested in
> commenting, of course :)
> Ken
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> xLgAn3Ij7U1jO9v/1AnXkAd8ZlWDS6pC
> =nF0i
> _______________________________________________
> Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
> Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug
> Join us on IRC: lug.boulder.co.us port=6667 channel=#hackingsociety
> --
> Jeffrey Haemer <jeffrey.haemer at gmail.com>
> 720-837-8908 [cell]
> 303-997-1219 [Google Voice]
> http://seejeffrun.blogspot.com

Jeffrey Haemer <jeffrey.haemer at gmail.com>
720-837-8908 [cell]
303-997-1219 [Google Voice]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/pipermail/lug/attachments/20090531/d9bfe1c4/attachment.html>

More information about the LUG mailing list