[eside-ghost] Patentes - Por qué el Software Libre/OpenSource tiene menos que temer que el Software Privativo.

[Gortazar Huete, Alain]

Con el cuerpo como un flan, ante las acusaciones que podéis vertir sobre mi,
os envío este artículo publicado en groklaw (que no creo que sea
precisamente un lugar pro-patentes). Me ha parecido interesante, además no
apoya a las patentes de software, simplemente insinúa que estas son aún
peores para el software privativo que para el libre.

A ver que os parece:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040901004705872

____
Zurt


Articulo:___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________
Patents - Why Free/Open Source Software Might Have Less to Fear than
Non-Free Software, by Dan Ravicher
Wednesday, September 01 2004 @ 08:47 AM EDT

Patents - Why Free/Open Source Software Might Have Less to Fear than
Non-Free Software

~ by Daniel B. Ravicher, Esq.
Executive Director, Public Patent Foundation

Many believe that patents pose a large threat to Free / Open Source
Software. Although this may be true, Free Software is no more concerned
about, and actually might be less concerned about, software patents than
most other software developers.

First recognize that any patent that covers Free Software is going to cover
non-free software, because licensing terms are irrelevant to a patent's
scope. So, there aren't any patents that only threaten Free Software; they
all threaten all software, regardless of license terms.

Now, assume there exists a patent that arguably covers Free Software and the
patent holder brings a patent infringement law suit to stop such
infringement. It is highly unlikely that the patent holder would receive a
preliminary injunction, as they are highly unusual in patent infringement
cases to begin with. Further, the equities and public harm would very rarely
be in favor of the patent holder, because Free Software is a public good, on
which many individuals, businesses, and government rely. Lastly, the wide
spread distribution of Free Software would render any such injunction
meaningless, unless it attached to every single possessor of a copy of the
allegedly infringing code, a highly unlikely scenario for any Free Software
project of significance.

This is where free software is very different from non-free software, and
why patents are more of a threat to the latter, than the former. A non-free
software product will have a harder time defending against a preliminary
injunction as, although they might be able to argue equities, they will have
much more difficulty arguing a public harm. Further, their product can
indeed be easily stopped because they have complete distribution control
over it.

Having virtually no chance at preliminary relief, the patent holder will
then seek damages, but here they are in a catch-22 when it comes to Free
Software. If they go after deep pockets, the defendant will, by the fact
that they are a "deep pocket," be more than capable of defending itself
against the patent assertion. Such defendants have a very high success rate
in patent cases, as about half of all litigated patents are held invalid and
many of those that are held valid are nonetheless held not infringed.

If, instead, the patent holder sues a little guy, there will be no money to
recover, because the defendant is a "little guy." Additionally, there are
several reasons why a deep pocket may step up to protect any such little
guy. First, the Free Software product involved may be very important to the
deep pocket. For instance, if a patent holder has a patent on Apache, the
most used web server in existence today, they could sue the Apache
Foundation, a small non-profit Free Software development organization. See
Netcraft Web Server Survey Archives, (showing Apache having almost 70%
market share in the web server market in February 2004). However, IBM and
all of the other major distributors of Apache would have a vested interest
in ensuring Apache, the product, wasn't defeated.

Second, a deep pocket competitor may be worried about a favorable claim
construction, the pre-trial process of determining what ambiguous or
arguable terms in a patent mean, resulting in the case with the little guy
because it may believe that it is next on the patent holder's "to-be-sued"
list. As such, the deep pocket may very well wish to impact the first claim
construction where the little guy is involved to ensure that the claim
construction is not a lopsided victory for the patent holder, because future
litigations involving the asserted patent may simply adopt or be
significantly impacted by that claim construction.

Therefore, a permanent injunction is the only truly threatening remedy
available for a patent holder bringing a patent infringement suit against
Free Software. However, knowing that patents cannot cover functionality, and
can only cover certain structure that accomplishes functionality, it is
highly likely that before a patent infringement case is tried and appealed,
the Free Software at issue can be designed around the asserted patent.
Further, it is also highly likely that the Free Software community, a very
participatory and technically sophisticated group, will be quite capable at
finding prior art to challenge the patent's validity.

In essence, the common theme is that, because of the network effects
inherent with Free Software, no party or project of any significance can be
singled out for attack on the basis of patent infringement. It is the
opposite of a free rider problem.

However, this does not mean that patents pose no threat to Free Software.
The burden placed on parties defending themselves from assertions of patent
infringement is indeed substantial, in terms of both costs and distraction.
Significant resources will be required to defend Free Software from patents,
but the battle can - and will - be won.




=============================
Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario.
Puede contener informacion confidencial sometida a secreto profesional o cuya divulgacion
este prohibida, en virtud de la legislacion vigente. No esta permitida su divulgacion,
copia o distribucion a terceros sin la autorizacion previa y por escrito de Iberdrola.
Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos nos lo comunique inmediatamente
por esta misma via y proceda a su destruccion.

This e-mail is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed
and may contain confidential or legally privileged information, which may not be disclosed
under current legislation. Any form of disclosure, copying or distribution of this e-mail
is strictly prohibited, save with written authorisation from Iberdrola.
If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail
and delete all copies of the message.
=============================