<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://www.thestandard.com" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title></title>
 <link>http://www.thestandard.com/node/133437/comments</link>
 <description>comments feed.</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Linux Defenders, Red Hat call for prior art to counter Microsoft patents</title>
 <link>http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/04/29/red-hat-endorses-opposition-microsoft-patents</link>
 <description>&lt;!--paging_filter--&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;!--paging_filter--&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;!--paging_filter--&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There&#039;s something about patents that infuriates a certain class of software programmer. I know because I used to be one: In 1987, I took part in a picket outside the Cambridge, Mass. offices of Lotus Software, chanting anti-patent, anti-copyright slogans (&amp;quot;Copyrights for look and feel! Let&#039;s go reinvent the wheel!&amp;quot;) in response to Lotus&#039; &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Development_Corporation#Look_and_Feel&quot;&gt;lawsuits&lt;/a&gt; against Paperback Software and Mosaic (no relation to the browser) for programs that resembled Lotus&#039; 1-2-3 spreadsheet application but cost less. As a fledgling programmer at MIT, I thought the idea that a company could legally own the look and feel of a program was as absurd as telling me I couldn&#039;t think about &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-tree&quot;&gt;B-tree&lt;/a&gt; data structures.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 2px&quot;&gt;
&lt;script type=&quot;text/javascript&quot;&gt; digg_url = &#039;http://digg.com/linux_unix/Red_Hat_joins_Linux_Defender_in_prior_art_campaign&#039;; &lt;/script&gt;&lt;script src=&quot;http://digg.com/tools/diggthis.js&quot; type=&quot;text/javascript&quot;&gt; &lt;/script&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I&#039;ve since altered my position more in favor of companies -- and the people who comprise them -- who spend years developing a popular application, only to see cheap or free knockoffs eliminate their potential rewards. Nevertheless, I can still appreciate the slow-burn anger of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://linuxdefenders.org/&quot;&gt;Linux Defenders&lt;/a&gt;, a group of open-source advocates who want to stamp out what they feel are &amp;quot;poor quality patents.&amp;quot; Specifically, they mean three file-management patents that Microsoft has used in a lawsuit against GPS maker &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tomtom.com/&quot;&gt;TomTom&lt;/a&gt; -- a lawsuit that &lt;a href=&quot;/news/2009/02/27/microsoft-goes-after-tomtom-and-linux&quot;&gt;took on Linux&lt;/a&gt; as well as TomTom, claiming parts of TomTom&#039;s Linux operating system violated the patents.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;CNET&#039;s Ina Fried has &lt;a href=&quot;http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10228948-56.html&quot;&gt;bundled the multiple websites&lt;/a&gt; required to follow the story. In short, Linux Defenders are looking for prior art -- file management code that predates Microsoft&#039;s claimed dates of invention, which could therefore invalidate the patents. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A bunch of Linux geeks looking to stomp a Microsoft patent is nothing new, but this time Linux Defenders have the endorsement of Red Hat&#039;s legal team. This morning, Red Hat&#039;s lawyers explained &lt;a href=&quot;http://press.redhat.com/2009/04/29/fighting-bad-patents-with-good-prior-art/&quot;&gt;what makes good prior art&lt;/a&gt; in a tidy blog post that is thankfully short on legalese. Executive summary: &amp;quot;The most useful prior art is art dated more than year before the filing date for a patent, but prior art dated anywhere in the year before the patent’s filing date is still helpful.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To the Tuxmobile! &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/04/29/red-hat-endorses-opposition-microsoft-patents#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.thestandard.com/taxonomy/term/835">co:microsoft</category>
 <category domain="http://www.thestandard.com/taxonomy/term/3021">patents</category>
 <category domain="http://www.thestandard.com/taxonomy/term/5668">Standards &amp;amp; Legal</category>
 <category domain="http://www.thestandard.com/taxonomy/term/2514">The Industry Standard</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 17:09:29 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Paul Boutin</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">133437 at http://www.thestandard.com</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
