This morning I have read this article on Tech Crunch mentioning that – great news – one of the senior executives of Google has finally said it loud what we have thought for years: [most] software patents are detrimental to innovation. Only, he falls short of the point, because he asks for a "real patent reform," whereas the only suitable reform is a software patent abolition (if not an entire patent system abolition, but that is another discussion). All software patents are detrimental to innovation. Period.
But software patents are also detrimental to competition. Especially if they are used in an anticompetitive way. The Microsoft case, once again, gives us good food for thought and leads me to think that there is more than one antitrust concern over the sale of Nortel patents. May I attempt a few short answers to reasonable questions that are lingering around when I mention the antitrust issue. I plead guilty of omitting much of the necessary background.
Karsten Gerloff, President of the Free Software Foundation Europe, publishes a blog post on the hearing in the Microsoft v Commission case (T-167/08) dealing with the 899 million euro fine for failing to offer reasonable and non discriminatory condition for revealing secret interoperability information, AKA the "no patent" agreement that the Protocol Freedom Information Foundation has subsequently negotiated to provide same information to Samba Team and others. The article is offered under the condition "Creative Commons Attribution" (CC-BY)
A new issue of the International Free and Open Source Software Law Review is out. This number sports among others a very interesting article by my good friend Maurits Dolmans on the interaction of patents and standards, with a plea for Open Standards. Definitely worth reading. Also noteworthy an introduction to a document that attempts at clarifying how the various linking and other interactions between software from different sources can work – or not work – in copyleft software mingling, by Malcolm Bain.
Other hot topics covered are the patenting of software in Europe, by Noam Shemtov, and the somewhat controversial Project Harmony aims and workings, explained by the leading lawyer Amanda Brock. For those interested in public procurement, the article by Mathieu Paapst explains some aspects of the affirmative actions to favor open source, form mostly an economical perspective, which nicely complements my own article in the previous issue. Those who like reading controversial authors will definitely love to hate Matt Asay's platform article.
Recently I have caught myself deep into discussions on the extent of copyright applied to Free Software and how the copyleft effect plays a role in Software Freedom. On an Identi.ca message I said:
Free Software is NOT about the freedom to choose the license under which software made by others can be redistributed.
Recently Oracle has sued Google on patent and copyright claims, demanding satisfaction regarding a – for want of a better word – functional equivalent of Java for Android named "Dalvik". A voice has pointed out that I have not been as talkative as when I announced my public support to the merger between Sun and Oracle. Now it is time to respond.
Ifosslr Volume 2, issue 1, is out with an article of mine on a recent case on which the Italian Constitutional Court has ruled in favour of giving preference to Free Software in Public Administration. Here is the Abstract
Hugo Roy asked my thoughts about the recent case of Google's employees being convicted in Italy for a video that has been online a few months on Google Video (now YouTube).
I have already said so by and large, microblogged extensively on that. My opinion is that the decision is a shame for my Country.
A new issue of the 