Ubuntu reaches out to embarrassed SuSE devs

[Ian Malone]

grumpy wrote:
> On Saturday 25 November 2006 17:38, Benjamin Franz wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006, grumpy wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> It won't go anywhere because micro$ux would have to release their source
>>> code to prove infringement
>> You are thinking copyright. If there is a _patent_ violation all they
>> would need to do is point to the patent - they are public documents (they
>> have to be, with a few specific exceptions such as where the government
>> can premptively classify a patent for national security reasons).
>>
>> They don't even have to be using the patent for anything. They most
>> certainly would not have to release any source code.
> you still have to prove infringement you can't just say joe blow software is 
> infringing on my patent the judge says How? you say they just are we have a 
> patent. the judge says and how does that infringe on your patent?
> This is a road that micro$ux will not take to the bitter end
> 

You have to prove infringement, but you prove that the other
party is infringing your patent (the patent being published
and, theoretically[1] public knowledge).  They would not
need to publish source code, and even if they did have to
show source code to a court it would still be protected by
patent laws /and/ copyright (the MS code is no big secret,
you can get a license to see it if you have enough money).
With open source they don't even have to subpoena or
anything like that, they can just download the source and
look for pieces that infringe[2].

[1] One of the problems with the whole system is that the
proliferation of patents has made it had to follow what's
been published, and they can be deliberately obscure.
c.f. gif/LZW debacle for an occasion when a patented technique
was widely used _because no-one realised_.  The original
intent was that the method was made public knowledge in
exchange for a temporary monopoly to protect the investment
of time.  This is versus trade secrets where you can keep your
monopoly indefinitely provided no-one else independently
(industrial espionage is still illegal) invents the technique.
My problem with this apparent MS posturing (maybe of course
it's an ill-advised publicity statement), is that they want
to have their cake and eat it; trade secret obscurity with the
monopolistic protection of patents.

[2] IANAL, so I don't know whether such a fishing expedition
is legal (you can acquire the code with this intent without
going to court), but in practice it's hard to prevent anyway,
and there's nothing really unfair about it.

-- 
imalone