DOCSLIB.ORG

Open-Source Insurance Provider Finds Patent Risks in Linux

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Open-Source Insurance Provider Finds Patent Risks in Linux Open-Source Insurance Provider Finds Patent Risks in Linux By: Steven Vaughan-Nichols 2004-08-02 Open Source Risk Management, who offers litigation insurance policies, has found nearly 300 patents that could theoretically be used against Linux. How risky are these patents? How much should you be concerned? Open-Source Insurance Provider Finds Patent Risks in Linux SAN FRANCISCO—On Monday, OSRM, a provider of open-source consulting and risk mitigation insurance, announced that the group has found that there are 283 issued, but not yet court-validated, software patents that could conceivablly be used in patent claims against Linux. Thats the potential bad news for Linux developers and users. The good news is that the Linux kernel contains no court-validated software patents. For those who are seriously concerned about the risks, OSRM (Open Source Risk Management)will be offering a litigation insurance policy starting in 2005. OSRM began offering copyright infringement insurance to Linux users in April 2004. Patent attorney Dan Ravicher, leader of the OSRM patent study and executive senior counsel to the Free Software Foundation, added that only about "half of software patents stand up in court." Of those 283 issued patents, Ravicher continued, "about a third are held by organizations or companies that are seen as Linux friendly: IBM, HP, Novell, Red Hat, etc. At the same time, though, 10 percent of these patents are held by Microsoft." Ravicher also points out that, "This is not a doomsday scenario. This number of potential patent concerns is typical for a software product of the size and complexity of Linux." OSRM won’t publicly say what the specific software patents are that potentially affect Linux because it "would put the whole developer community at risk." That’s because of what he describes as the "Catch-22 of patent law ... Patent law is meant to popularize technology, but at the same time if you look at software patents as a developer, you put yourself at more legal risk." From www.eweek.com/c/a/Linux-and-Open-Source/OpenSource-Insurance-Provider-Finds-Patent-Risks- in-Linux/ 2 April 2011 "Current U.S. patent law creates an environment in which vendors and developers are generally advised by their lawyers not to examine other peoples software patents, because doing so creates the risk of triple damages for willful infringement," explained Daniel Egger, chairman and founder of OSRM. "This studied ignorance leaves the field open to those who would spread fear and disinformation. It also means that only a vendor-neutral entity, like OSRM, has the freedom and incentive to assess the true risks." So what can developers and users do? According to Ravicher, they have five possible approaches. First, he suggests advocating for "patent policy reform." Because as it is now, "Its ridiculous." But, while this would be the best, comprehensive answer, "it will take a while-years-if ever before the laws are reformed. Next, if you already suspect there’s a specific patent that might be a problem for Linux, start looking for prior art to get the patent overturned if its holder tries to take it to court. There is already a public project, Grokline, which is working on "creating a history of Unix and Unix-like code with the goal of reducing, or eliminating, the amount of software subject to superficially plausible but ultimately invalid copyright, patent and trade secret claims against Linux or other free and open source software." Grokline is directed by Pamela Jones of Groklaw, the well-known SCO litigation news site, and receives support from OSRM. You can also be ready to design around existing patents. This can only be done on a case by case basis and again its something of a Catch-22 since you can only design around it, said Ravicher "after the threat is upon you." In such cases, however, it’s not enough to show that you immediately acted to take care of the patent issue. Ravicher explains, "The rule is that you must have an attorney state that, in their expert opinion, you’ve taken such action." Such letters, Ravicher continued from qualified attorneys run around 20 to 40 thousand dollars. Finally, Ravicher says "You can simply pay for a patent license so long as you do so in a way that doesn’t conflict with the GPL." Many people, he adds think that patent licenses almost always conflict with open source licenses but that’s not the case. "Some patent licenses are compatible with GPL and some patent-holders are willing to expressively say that in their licenses. The problem with most of these solutions continued Ravicher is "that they’re one-shot, case-by-case answers. There is no immediate and comprehensive solution." From www.eweek.com/c/a/Linux-and-Open-Source/OpenSource-Insurance-Provider-Finds-Patent-Risks- in-Linux/ 2 April 2011 In response, OSRM will be expanding its risk mitigation and insurance offerings to cover this quantifiable risk. "Patents pose a financial risk to corporate Linux users-just like they do to corporate users of almost any software-because, whether or not a patent is truly infringed, it costs $3 million dollars on average to defend a patent lawsuit," said Ravicher. "This heavy cost of proving even weak patents invalid could fall on unprepared end-users, who, until now, have often been forced to pay settlements to avoid risking millions on litigation. Orems new patent insurance gives such end-users another way to address the issue, as it is a direct competitive alternative to licensing or litigating." Ravicher summed up his findings. Specifically, OSRM will be supplying patent-infringement defense insurance for Linux developers and users. At first, this program, which will roll out in 2005, will only be available for the Linux kernel, but OSRM will it extend it to more open-source programs over time. The insurance, which caps out at $5 million, will pay for a legal defense and for damages. "The most important message to take away, based on OREM’s proprietary research and quantitative models and the best independent legal analysis available to us, is that the core of the Linux operating system appears to be a normal, insurable patent risk for the businesses that use it. And, based on our hands-on work with many different types of customers, we have found the total cost of ownership of using Linux to still be dramatically lower than proprietary alternatives for customers that add in the cost of effective risk-management," said Egger. "What it boils down to is that Linux has patent risks; but they can and will become conventional insured risks, just an everyday cost of doing business. OSRMs whole mission is to make the issue of Linux liability simple, routine, and manageable." From www.eweek.com/c/a/Linux-and-Open-Source/OpenSource-Insurance-Provider-Finds-Patent-Risks- in-Linux/ 2 April 2011 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • How to Utilize Open Source Software in the Commercial Environment
    Janne Hemilä HOW TO UTILIZE OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE IN THE COMMERCIAL ENVIRONMENT Aalto School of Science Instructor and supervisor: Professor Ilkka Kauranen HOW$TO$UTILIZE$OPEN$SOURCE$SOFTWARE$IN$THE$COMMERCIAL$ENVIRONMENT$ 2! Abstract AALTO UNIVERSITY ABSTRACT OF THE MASTER’S THESIS SCHOOL OF SCIENCE PO Box 12100, FI-00076 AALTO http://www.aalto.fi AUTHOR: Janne Hemilä TITLE: How to utilize open source software in the commercial environment SCHOOL: School of Science DEPARTMENT: Department of industrial engineering and management PROFESSORSHIP: Strategic management CODE: TU-91 SUPERVISOR: Professor Ilkka Kauranen INSTRUCTOR: Professor Ilkka Kauranen My experience working with open source software exposed a lack of comprehensive, easily graspable, introductory articles suitable for non-technical readers. The objective of this study is to provide the reader with a comprehensive understanding on how to utilize open source software in a commercial environment. Through a literature review this study identifies common patterns among open source projects and related companies. Patterns have been organized into four identified domains: legal, social, technological and business. Real life examples of the patterns are provided to assist understanding. In conclusion, this thesis argues that open source can be utilized to build successful commercial operations. Open source can be used to improve software development, software quality, to gain feedback, to expand the user base, to influence the direction of technological progress and to benefit from
    [Show full text]
  • Richard Stallman Idea in 1983 Legal Help 1985 GPL V1 1988 GPL V2 1991 GPL V3 2007 Analysis and Foresight
    © Copyright Andy Pepperdine 2006 - 2010 The text is mine and can be used under a Creative Commons license – Sharealike 2.5 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/ You may use and modify, but only if you release modifications under the same license. Sources of pictures are attributed in the notes with each slide. 2010-04-22 U3A in Bath - FOSS group What will you do when Microsoft no longer supports Windows XP? XP Home mainstream supported ended 14 April 2009 Extended support to 2014 2010-04-22 U3A in Bath - FOSS group Have you read the End User License Agreement (EULA)? Do you know what it means? 2010-04-22 U3A in Bath - FOSS group Are you paying to keep viruses out of your system? 2010-04-22 U3A in Bath - FOSS group Are you afraid of strange e-mails? 2010-04-22 U3A in Bath - FOSS group Will you still be able to print your photos and letters in 10 years time? 20 years? Will your children / grandchildren / historians have access to them in 50 years time? 100 years? 2010-04-22 U3A in Bath - FOSS group Who owns the keys to your filing cabinet? Do you know what DRM is? 2010-04-22 U3A in Bath - FOSS group Can you afford the next upgrade of your PC? 2010-04-22 U3A in Bath - FOSS group Free and Open Source Software Andy Pepperdine - U3A Mike Godfrey - U3A This presentation has been created using entirely free software (OpenOffice running on Ubuntu Linux, with Firefox to download data from various internet sites) 2010-04-22 U3A in Bath - FOSS group Questions you might have What is FOSS? Free and Open Source Software How can it be free?
    [Show full text]
  • Open Source, Open Standards: Maximizing Utility While Managing Exposure
    CONFERENCE SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OPEN SOURCE, OPEN STANDARDS: MAXIMIZING UTILITY WHILE MANAGING EXPOSURE SEPTEMBER 12-14, 2004 SCOTTSDALE, AZ Prepared by: Sherrie Bolin President & CEO The Bolin Group Phone 831.336.9964 [email protected] © 2004 The Bolin Group. All Rights Reserved. Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................3 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................5 Open Source Challenges and Solutions.........................................................................................6 Intellectual Property Issues ......................................................................................................7 Support and Integration Risks ...............................................................................................11 Implications for Open Source Adoption ......................................................................................12 Open Source/Open Standards Partnership..................................................................................13 Value of Open Standards........................................................................................................13 Linking the Two Communities...............................................................................................14 A Call to Action.............................................................................................................................16
    [Show full text]
  • Cultivating Creative Commons: from Creative Regulation to Regulatory Commons
    Cultivating Creative Commons: From Creative Regulation to Regulatory Commons Prodromos Tsiavos Department of Management Information Systems and Innovation Group London School of Economics and Political Science Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy October 2007 1 Declaration The research presented in this thesis was conducted by Prodromos Tsiavos. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK: England & Wales License. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/uk/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California 94105, USA. 2 Cultivating Creative Commons: From Creative Regulation to Regulatory Commons Abstract This thesis explores and explains the development of the Creative Commons (CC) as an alternative to mainstream copyright protection. It argues that the distinctive characteristics of CC as a license based, configurable form of meta–regulation can be explained by consideration of the disciplinary background of the movement’s founder (Lawrence Lessig) and as a consequence of the particular mode of development it undertook (e–mail discussions as commonly used in the arena of software development rather than traditional legal discussions) as well as the influence of a variety of pre- existing regulatory forms. The second part of the research reviews the inputs from multiple existing regulatory structures such as the Free Software Foundation and the Open Content movement, and de-constructs the process by which the CC is developed in practice. The thesis analyzes the trajectory of CC from a licensing project to a political project, the structural elements of the CC licences and the decision making process of their creation and development.
    [Show full text]
  • A Study of the Application of Free and Open Source Software Licensing Ideas to Art and Cultural Production
    Sandbox Culture A Study of the Application of Free and Open Source Software Licensing Ideas to Art and Cultural Production Aymeric Mansoux Supervisor: Matthew Fuller Thesis presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Centre for Cultural Studies, Goldsmiths, University of London, February 2017 I, Aymeric Mansoux, confirm that the work presented in this thesis ismy own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis. Date: February 19, 2017 Signed: Abstract In partial response to the inability of intellectual property laws to adapt to data-sharing over computer networks, several initiatives have proposed techno-legal alternatives to encourage the free circulation and transfor- mation of digital works. These alternatives have shaped part of contem- porary digital culture for more than three decades and are today often associated with the “free culture” movement. The different strands of this movement are essentially derived from a narrower concept of soft- ware freedom developed in the nineteen-eighties, and which is enforced within free and open source software communities. This principle was the first significant effort to articulate a reusable techno-legal template to work around the limitations of intellectual property laws. It also of- fered a vision of network culture where community participation and sharing was structural. From alternate tools and workflow systems, artist-run servers, net- work publishing experiments, open data and design lobbies, cooperative and collaborative frameworks, but also novel copyright licensing used by both non-profit organisations and for-profit corporations, the impact on cultural production of practices developed in relation to the ideas of iii free and open source software has been both influential and broadly ap- plied.
    [Show full text]
  • Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Jason Schultz and Jennifer M
    HarvardJournal of Law & Technology Volume 26, Number 1 Fall 2012 PROTECTING OPEN INNOVATION: THE DEFENSIVE PATENT LICENSE AS A NEW APPROACH TO PATENT THREATS, TRANSACTION COSTS, AND TACTICAL DISARMAMENT Jason Schultz and Jennifer M. Urban* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION....................2..... ................. 2 II. OPEN INNOVATION PATENTING: BENEFITS AND BARRIERS............. 6 A. The Costs and Benefits of Defensive Patenting..............6 B. The Cultural and Political Barriers to OIC Patenting..........10 C. The Reliability of OIC Patenting Promises.................. 14 III. A FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATING OIC PATENT STRATEGIES.............................................15 A. Drawing FoundationalPrinciples from the OIC Literature and Practice. ................... ......... 16 1. OIC Theories, Values, and Practices ......... ........... 16 2. Principles Derived from OIC Theory, Values, and Practices........................................21 A. Principle One. Commitment to Freedom................ 21 i. Freedom to Operate and Freedom to Innovate.......... 21 B. Principle Two. Commitment to Openness............. 22 i. Access to Knowledge........................... 22 ii. Transparentand Non-DiscriminatoryLegal Terms and Enforcement Conditions.............. 23 iii. Interoperabilityand Technology Neutrality............ 23 C. Principle Three. Distributed Costs and Benefits........... 24 D. Principle Four. Reliability. ........... ................. 25 * Jason Schultz and Jennifer M. Urban are Assistant Clinical Professors of Law at the UC
    [Show full text]
  • Open Invention Network: a Defensive Patent Pool for Open Source Projects and Businesses Deborah Nicholson
    Technology Innovation Management Review January 2012 Open Invention Network: A Defensive Patent Pool for Open Source Projects and Businesses Deborah Nicholson I think it is important to realize that technology defined “ as practice shows us the deep cultural link of technology, ” and it saves us from thinking that technology is the icing on the cake. Technology is part of the cake itself. Ursula Franklin The Real World of Technology This article explores how patents impact innovation within free/libre open source soft- ware (F/LOSS) businesses and projects. The number of software patent suits brought each year is increasing and is diverting millions of dollars in funds from developers to lawyers. With patent suits on the rise, the US Supreme Court has left the F/LOSS community in a position where it must either wait years for legislation or address the issue of patent suits itself. However, defending the Linux kernel and related technologies is a different chal- lenge than the one that faces proprietary software businesses. This article describes Open Invention Network, an initiative that is designed to meet the particular challenges facing the F/LOSS community and businesses by providing a defensive patent pool. Introduction jects and businesses. Finally, we discuss Open Inven- tion Network (OIN), a defensive patent pool established The threat of software patent suits impacts standards, to help Linux-based projects and businesses defeat or dictates what software becomes part of GNU/Linux deflect the threat of litigation. distributions, creates extra work, and makes the end- user's experience less than ideal, as will be shown in Software Patents in the United States this article.
    [Show full text]
  • High Barratry Computers, Topical D(C Capo 2) 2:45 High Barratry Lyrics C 2004 Stephen Savitzky
    HyperRpace ExpreRR βroadRide! High Barratry computers, topical D(C capo 2) 2:45 High Barratry Lyrics c 2004 Stephen Savitzky. Some Rights Reserved1. ttto: High Barbary (trad) This really needs an introduction that mentions both The SCO Group, originally a Linux distributor called Caldera that changed their name when they got delusions of grandure and started suing their customers over bogus IP claims, and barratry, which is what they were doing. C G F G Of a company called S-C-O, the tale I’ll briefly tell C G F G With G-P-L, our software all is free G C F C G C F Who turned their hands to barratry when software wouldn’t sell G C G F C G C Sailing through the legal straits of High Barratry “And are you selling Linux or old Unixware?” said we With GPL, our software all is free We’re the owners of all Unix come demanding of our fee! Sailing through the legal straits of High Barratry You’ve stolen code from System V and given it away With GPL, our software all is free So buy licences for Linux, or we’ll sue and make you pay Sailing through the legal straits of High Barratry They first sued IBM over a million lines of code With GPL, our software all is free Though a subroutine or two from BSD was all they showed Sailing through the legal straits of High Barratry Well, RedHat sued them next so they went gunning for Novell With GPL, our software all is free Autozone and Daimler-Chrysler soon were on their list as well Sailing through the legal straits of High Barratry Then lawsuit and lawsuit we fought for many a day With GPL, our software all
    [Show full text]
  • The Pursuit of Efficient Copyright Licensing How Some Rights Reserved Attempts to Solve the Problems of All Rights Reserved
    Herkko Hietanen The Pursuit of Efficient Copyright Licensing How Some Rights Reserved Attempts to Solve the Problems of All Rights Reserved Thesis for the degree of Doctor of Science (Economics and Business Adminis- tration) to be presented with due permission for the public examination and criticism in the Auditorium of the Student Union House at Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland, on the 9th of December, 2008 at noon. Acta Universitatis Lappeenrantaensis 325 Supervisor Professor Jukka Kemppinen Department of Business Administration Lappeenranta University of Technology Finland Reviewers Professor Brian Fitzgerald Professor of Intellectual Property and Innovation Law Faculty Queensland University of Technology Australia Professor Raimo Siltala Faculty of Law University of Turku Finland Opponent Professor Brian Fitzgerald Professor of Intellectual Property and Innovation Law Faculty Queensland University of Technology Australia Copyright © 2008 Herkko Hietanen This text of this book is licensed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Fi –license. The license is available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/fi. Accordingly, you are free to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work under the following conditions: (1) you must give the original author credit, (2) you may not use this work for commercial purposes, and (3) you may not alter, transform, or build upon this work. ISBN 978-952-214-655-7 ISSN 1456-4491 Lappeenrannan teknillinen yliopisto Digipaino 2008 Abstract Herkko Hietanen The Pursuit of Efficient Copyright Licensing – How Some Rights Reserved Attempts to Solve the Problems of All Rights Reserved Lappeenranta 2008 311 pages Acta Universitatis Lappeenrantaensis 325 Diss.
    [Show full text]
  • Conference Proceedings of JITP 2010: the Politics of Open Source
    University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst The ourJ nal of Information Technology and Politics The oP litics of Open Source Annual Conference 2010 Conference Proceedings of JITP 2010: The olitP ics of Open Source Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/jitpc2010 Part of the Library and Information Science Commons "Conference Proceedings of JITP 2010: The oP litics of Open Source" (2010). The Politics of Open Source. 1. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.umass.edu/jitpc2010/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the The ourJ nal of Information Technology and Politics Annual Conference at ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in The oP litics of Open Source by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 2nd Annual Journal of Information Technology & Politics Thematic Conference “Politics of Open Source” University of Massachusetts Amherst Amherst, MA May 6 – 7, 2010 Conference Chairs Stuart W. Shulman University of Massachusetts Amherst Charles M. Schweik University of Massachusetts Amherst Sponsors Microsoft Google Department of Political Science Department of Computer Science Texifter Open Source Software Institute Qualitative Data Analysis Program Center for Public Policy and Administration National Center for Digital Government Journal of Information Technology & Politics Conference website http://politicsofopensource.jitp.net/ Copyright Politics of Open Source
    [Show full text]
  • High Barratry
    D(C capo 2) 2:45 High Barratry Lyrics c 2004 Stephen Savitzky. Some Rights Reserved1. ttto: High Barbary (trad) This really needs an introduction that mentions both The SCO Group, originally a Linux distributor called Caldera that changed their name when they got delusions of grandure and started suing their customers over bogus IP claims, and barratry, which is what they were doing. C G F G Of a company called S-C-O, the tale I’ll briefly tell C G F G With G-P-L, our software all is free G C F C G C F Who turned their hands to barratry when software wouldn’t sell G C G F C G C Sailing through the legal straits of High Barratry “And are you selling Linux or old Unixware?” said we With GPL, our software all is free We’re the owners of all Unix come demanding of our fee! Sailing through the legal straits of High Barratry You’ve stolen code from System V and given it away With GPL, our software all is free So buy licences for Linux, or we’ll sue and make you pay Sailing through the legal straits of High Barratry They first sued IBM over a million lines of code With GPL, our software all is free Though a subroutine or two from BSD was all they showed Sailing through the legal straits of High Barratry Well, RedHat sued them next so they went gunning for Novell With GPL, our software all is free Autozone and Daimler-Chrysler soon were on their list as well Sailing through the legal straits of High Barratry Then lawsuit and lawsuit we fought for many a day With GPL, our software all is free ’Till the research done at Groklaw2 blew their cases
    [Show full text]
  • Groklaw Shuts Down Award-Winning, Software Freedom-Defending Legal Site to Close Over Privacy Fears
    This ISSUE: Ubuntu Edge War games GPL violation Android arguments BIG BROTHER Groklaw shuts down Award-winning, software freedom-defending legal site to close over privacy fears. roklaw, the legal site set up to US out or to the US in, but really fight the protracted SCO vs anywhere. You don’t expect a stranger GIBM case (see boxout, below) to read your private communications to has folded after 10 years of award- a friend. And once you know they can, winning campaigning journalism. The what is there to say? Constricted and site’s founder, Pamela Jones, cited fears distracted … That’s how I feel.” that she would not be able to protect the identity of sources in the light of Thanks for all the fishes recent revelations over email security. Jones, a paralegal by training, set up Writing in the site’s last post, Jones Groklaw to bridge the gap in said: “The owner of Lavabit tells us that understanding between the worlds of he’s stopped using email and if we knew the programmer and the courtroom. what he knew, we’d stop too. There is no Although it was originally intended to way to do Groklaw without email. provide clarity over the SCO vs IBM legal Therein lies the conundrum. fight, Groklaw also helped other legal “I hope that makes it clear why I cases with implications for free software, can’t continue. There is now no shield including Oracle vs Google, Microsoft vs Groklaw spoke rather than comply with a demand that from forced exposure. Nothing in that Motorola and Apple vs just about truth to power, it be given access to its users’ email parenthetical thought list is terrorism- everyone in the world.
    [Show full text]