Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 28th Mar 2013 23:16 UTC
Google This. This is what we need. These are the kind of steps from which we all benefit. Google has just announced the Open Patent Non-Assertion Pledge: the company promises not to sue any users, distributors, or developers of open source products based on the patents it owns (unless first attacked).
Thread beginning with comment 557033
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
First step
by novad on Fri 29th Mar 2013 07:17 UTC
novad
Member since:
2010-06-10

I agree that 10 patents (only) is a bit cheap...
Actually it's only a PR "Coup"

But!!!

If this gets extended to a fait amount of other patents then it's really a positive move. Not every major evolution starts with a revolution.

For those (or the always same one) criticizing this move. Could you tell me in which way it is negative? I know Tony has a hate relation to Google (or Samsung) that comes close to insanity but please, answer the question. In which way is it negative? The worst that could happen is... Nothing.

I would love to see other companies following this example, even if it’s only PR it would benefit to everyone.

Edited 2013-03-29 07:19 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: First step
by MyNameIsNot4Letter on Fri 29th Mar 2013 07:33 in reply to "First step"
MyNameIsNot4Letter Member since:
2011-01-09

It is negative because it only serves open source. If this takes off, we'll see less demand for real change because half (or what ever number) the people affected will now be free of the patent headache.

Woopti doo for them, but the rest of the industry is still knee deep in sh...patents.

So yeah, if this works, we're less likely to ever see any improvements (unless you are an OSS fanatic, of course, in which case this is probably fantastic news you think).

/Uni

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: First step
by novad on Fri 29th Mar 2013 07:40 in reply to "RE: First step"
novad Member since:
2010-06-10

Hey… No need to be so aggressive. Who’s the fanatic here ;-)

It would be the perfect outcome if the whole patent system would be reworked.

Or better… It shouldn’t be applied to software. Some fine-tuning of copyright laws would do the trick. I think most people here agree with that.

The problem is that this has very little chance to happen. The Non-Assertion pledge, if not only a PR coup, is a pragmatic way to start somewhere. It’s clear it shouldn’t stop at that point.

FRAND isn’t a solution to the IP problem either, but it has been useful in many cases.

Edited 2013-03-29 07:42 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: First step
by przemo_li on Fri 29th Mar 2013 07:40 in reply to "RE: First step"
przemo_li Member since:
2010-06-01

Your logic fails you:

1) You assume that Industry is not FLOSS. That is that app/code that is FLOSS can NOT be significant part of Industry.

2) You assume that relevant patents are mostly used in proprietary code. While most of "Industry" that use it may be FLOSS already. (I do not know it, but just poining out weakness)

3) You assume that part of Industry that embrace FLOSS can NOT see and/or voice their disagreement about patents during patent law forming processes.


In other words you treat FLOSS using/based/centered part of Industry as insignificant without giving data proving it.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: First step
by Vanders on Sat 30th Mar 2013 23:57 in reply to "RE: First step"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

Woopti doo for them, but the rest of the industry is still knee deep in sh...patents.

They were the ones who squatted on the floor and created that pile in the first place, so why shouldn't they wallow in it?

Reply Parent Score: 4