Management
Technology
- Applications
- Business Intelligence
- Development
- Hardware
- Mobile & Wireless
- Networking
- Internet
- Operating Systems
- Security Products
- Servers & Datacentre
- Storage
Toolbox
Training
Books
White Papers
Webcast
Resource Centre
A Question Red Hat Must Answer
March 25, 2009
Posted by: Glyn Moody
With apologies for returning to the theme of patents, I'd like to direct your attention to a long and interesting piece that has appeared on the Digital Majority site asking a very important question: “Did Red Hat lobby for, or against software patents in Europe?”
The piece is dense and closely argued, drawing on Red Hat's statements down the years to support its case. The central question it tries to address is whether Red Hat is truly helping to fight software patents in Europe, or whether it simply wants the patent system reformed to something more convenient for its own purposes as a big software house, while retaining the good graces of the free software movement. Here's the concluding paragraph:
Red Hat, instead of working with the Abolitionists to end software patents in Europe, was working to rewrite the law and remove the protection from patents that Europe's small software sector had enjoyed until then. While this seems normal and obvious for a firm that needs to answer to shareholders and investors, it is Red Hat's own statements that baffle us. If Red Hat seeks patents "to discourage patent lawsuits by giving us the ability to retaliate against potential patent aggressors by asserting counter-claims as a defence", why did they not work for abolition in Europe in 2005 and why are they not working for abolition in 2009?
Happily, this issue is very easy to resolve: all Red Hat need do is to state clear and unequivocally, once and for all, whether it wants software patents abolished – not reformed - in Europe. That's not too much to ask, is it? Hello, Red Hat: we're waiting....
Follow highlights from ComputerworldUK on Twitter
Sign up for our Daily Newsletter
The UK IT News widget Get it for your site!
<<newer entry | back to blogs index | older entry>>
Advert
Email this article to a friend or colleague:
PLEASE NOTE: Your name is used only to let the recipient know who sent the story, and in case of transmission error. Both your name and the recipient's name and address will not be used for any other purpose.
- This article is now being printed.
What are your views on this subject? Use the form below to post a comment on this article up to 1000 characters.
Click below to add 'A Question Red Hat Must Answer' to your blog.
If you do not have a ComputerworldUK Account and would like to use this feature, please Register.
If you are a registered, logged-in user, this will post the title and first paragraph of this story to your blog to share with your readers.
Advert
Newsletters
Our Daily & Weekly Newsletters highlight breaking news, vital issues, expert analysis and solutions to help you stay ahead of developments in the industry.
WHITE PAPERS
-
Legal risks: Employee use of the internet and email
Exploring the challenges facing IT Mangers today and vital steps to ensure safe internet an email use by employees. -
Phishing for victims
This White Paper examines the phenomenon of phishing. It explains the potentially catastrophic threat it presents to all kinds of organisation. Exploding some widespread myths, it lights up the murky waters where phishing first emerged and where it continues to evolve. But it also highlights what your business can do to blunt the threat.
About the author
Glyn Moody Glyn Moody's look at all levels of the enterprise open source stack. The blog will look at the organisations that are embracing open source, old and new alike (start-ups welcome), and the communities of users and developers that have formed around them (or not, as the case may be).
Comments received
Which part of Red Hat's patent policy didn't you r said on Thursday, 26 March 2009
http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html
"Red Hat has consistently taken the position that software patents generally impede innovation in software development and that software patents are inconsistent with open source/free software. Red Hat representatives have addressed this issue before the National Academies of Science, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, and the U.S. Department of Justice. Red Hat is also a signatory to a petition to the European Union encouraging the EU not to adopt a policy of permitting software patents. We will continue to work to promote this position and are pleased to join our colleagues in the open source/free software community, as well as those proprietary vendors which have publicly stated their opposition to software patents, in that effort."
Jan Wildeboer
Red Hat EMEA Evangelist, organiser of various demonstrations against software patents, known for his famous Karlsruhe happening with programmers wearing prisoner suits.
Glyn Moody said on Thursday, 26 March 2009
Well, the comments to the original post linked to above explain why that statement on its own is not really the end of the story.
jan Wildeboer said on Friday, 27 March 2009
WRT to your question "all Red Hat need do is to state clear and unequivocally, once and for all, whether it wants software patents abolished – not reformed - in Europe."
http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/markt/markt_consultations/library?l=/industrial_property/patents/consultation_future/r_contributions/red_hat_inc&vm=detailed&sb=Title
Red Hat has stated:
"We would far prefer a system that denied patents to software. We also observe
increasing tension between various industry sectors, particularly information
technology and pharmaceuticals, over the applicability and enforcement of patents.
These issues are rife within the U.S. patent system and are likely to become just as
problematic in any European patent system."
HTH
Jan Wildeboer
Glyn Moody said on Friday, 27 March 2009
Thanks. But - correct me if I'm wrong - there still seems to be an issue about the patents alreadly held by Red Hat, and the nature of the "promise.
Jan Wildeboer said on Saturday, 28 March 2009
Oh, you mean that anonymous WMGarrison that refuses to talk to me directly? Well - hard to solve a question when you have noone to talk to. I have offered to talk about these "problems" but WMGarrison is not interested in a solution from my point of view. Check the comments at the link you mention in your article. I only ask for a direct way to communicate but WMGarrison decides to ignore that. Now as this is all about legal stuff, I cannot talk to thin air - I need someone to talk to and ultimately find a joint solution. If however this very person decides to NOT talk it gets hard for me.
FYI - I have repeatedly ask for direct communication but all requests are denied.
Jan Wildeboer
Simon Phipps said on Sunday, 29 March 2009
I have to come to Red Hat's defense here from personal memory. The article you've linked to perpetuates an old, divisive and unhelpful argument that pits software freedom advocates against one another. Red Hat staff campaigned against the Directive just as I did, but using a strategy different from that adopted by FFII.
We visited key individuals at the European Parliament to advocate against adoption of the Directive, and it became clear to us that the absolutist approach was held in poor regard by many politicians. Our strategy became to identify the key parts of the Directive which, if neutered, would make it unacceptable to the pro-patent lobby.
It was indeed aborted by its own proponents rather than see patents unable to be enforced against interfaces. This is not to say the grass-roots work of FFII was ineffective; I heard MEPs express outrage that their industry advisers had failed to alert them to the depth of popular feeling on the issue. We won because of /both/ efforts
Arcadia said on Monday, 30 March 2009
To my analysis, the RH Patent Promise does not cover proprietary software.