Board index » kylix » Re: Borland patent stops Wine!

2005-05-18 05:19:56 PM
kylix1
XXXX@XXXXX.COM (Thomas Maeder [TeamB]) wrote in
Borland may not sue Open Source projects now, but this does not give these
projects the guarantee that Borland (may be with a new management or in
other situations) may use it's patents to sue.
 

SiegfriedN < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in news:428b0249
@newsgroups.borland.com:
protect you from a lawsuite.
 

XXXX@XXXXX.COM (Thomas Maeder [TeamB]) wrote in
case of a Open Source project? A person? "The project"? And what about
forks?
GIF-Format was already widely used.
 

{smallsort}

Andreas Prucha < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >writes:
don't know, because they don't ask.
It is not Borland's fault that patents can be both used in their
intended way (i.e. to protect one's investments - I understand this is
Borland's reason for having this patent) and abused for preventing
innovation.
As I wrote, there are many "good" examples for patents being used for
the latter; we don't have evidence that Borland intends to do that,
though.
And no, I am absolutely not in favor of software patents, because they
very rarely work in the way patents should work, but are abused. It is
ironical that a company is attacked for a patent it hasn't abused.
If you want to fight against software patents, be my guest. But pick
out better arguments.
 

Andreas Prucha < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >writes:
There are many lawyers out there. Looks like it's time for one of them
to do something useful :-)
 

SiegfriedN wrote:
--
www.jed-software.com
 

SiegfriedN wrote:
--
www.jed-software.com
 

Andreas Prucha < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
--
Iman
 

XXXX@XXXXX.COM (Thomas Maeder [TeamB]) wrote in
algorithms, but this is not realistic because others may do it. AFAIK it's
not possible to patent somenthing used before, but this is probably
difficult to proof.
So I'd say that software should not be allowed to be patent protected any
more. Unfortunately it seems that the EU is going in the wrong direction.
We did not have this nonense, but it seems that software patents will be
possible.
 

"JED" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in news:xn0e2e9is8062m005
@newsgroups.borland.com:
but it also works the other way around. The difference is, that ideas
from Open Source projects are often not protected. Some Open Source
projects (Non-GPL) even allow that the source is used in commerical
projects. So no, it's not a one-way-ticket.
project? Will you say "Bad Bad Borland. Don't do that" ... or will you
just happily accept the feature?
IMO software patents prevent innovation. People have learned from each
other and improved ideas they got from someone else all the time. Patents
hurt this process because it's not just the "origial" idea which is
protected, but also improvements of the original idea. Patents are often
too general.
And nobody can check for patents all the time. It's very likely that
almost every slightly more complexe piece of software violates one or
another patent.
 

Andreas Prucha wrote:
does not there could be trouble ;) ) - they have re-drafted the
exclusion to prevent the bulk of software ONLY patents.
We keep our fingers crossed in Europe!
--
Lester Caine
-----------------------------
L.S.Caine Electronic Services
 

Thomas Maeder [TeamB] sighed and wrote::
with (or even compared to) a company such as SCO. Even having Borland
being on the same statement as *censored* is insulting.
Edmund
Edmund
 

JED sighed and wrote::
waiting for lawsuits, one must actively search high and
low for all software patents and determine whether
or not each part of one's code violate any known
software patent? (Ok, possibly an fallacious point.)
What about the Patent Pendings?
Since most commercial in-house built software systems
are kept, well, in-house (ie. under lock and key
within the company), no one else can know whether
or not any part of the code contains patent violations.
The part that kind of puzzles me is that say in
such a company, a junior developer somehow finds out
part of the company code violates a patent.
As you said, feigning ignorance is not
a defense of the law, so ignoring the said
violation is not an option. Blow the whistle
on the company? Come to terms with the
rest of the development team and come up
with a possible work-around? Sounds logical,
but this will necessarily be 'wasting' the
team's time doing something over again. And
you know what happens when you do something
over again and the notorious introduction of
more bugs.
Here's where I'm confused and might just indicate
how useless a software patent is unless the
violating software is a publicly known/open-sourced
project. Perhaps you can clarify whether I've
analysed this properly.
From the software patent holder, it cannot
be feasible or even possible to make sure his/her
patent isn't being used without your express
permission. I think I can say it is impossible
for such a patent holder to attempt at checking
*every* system for patent infraction. Open source
is easier, but what about the countless of in-house
systems in private companies? He has no knowledge
or will *never* have access to any of the code.
From a software developer's point of view, it's not
feasible/possible to search one's code and compare
it to the patented routines. There's really
not enough time in the day to do both software
developing and checking patents, or as someone
on this thread mentioned, 'looking behind
one's shoulder.'(paraphrased..)
Thankfully, Borland isn't going after Wine, but I do
agree that they should consider consulting Borland.
But I guess them finding work-arounds do at least give
credence to their motto of having a fully free-software
without any legal 'entanglements'. :)
Edmund