Discussion of all things related to Public Domain

[tom poe <tompoe AT renonevada.net>]

On Wednesday 05 June 2002 15:44, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Jeremy Simmons <jsimmons AT media.is.tohoku.ac.jp> writes:
> > > Is Red Hat's "Our Promise with Respect to Software Patents We Hold"
> > > legally binding?
> > >
> > > http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html
> > >
> > > Could it be revoked if there was a change in control of the company?
> >
> > Red Hat is taking out patents in order to build up a defensive position.
> > I do not understand the need for this. If the information was just made
> > public then future users would not be able to claim patents over that
> > because it was pre-existing knowledge and would not be innovative.
>
> It's defensive because it gives Red Hat some ammunition should they
> face a patent lawsuit from some other software company.  It gives them
> a chance of offering a patent cross-licensing agreement or threatening
> a counter-suit.
>
> In today's software patent world, in which any software company is
> guaranteed to be in violation of dozens of patents, it is crazy for
> any software company to not obtain software patents.  Software patents
> are easy to get and, for a corporation, relatively cheap, and even a
> weak shield against an infringement lawsuit is better than no shield
> at all.
>
> Ian


Hi:  I suppose that's good thinking in a proprietary world.  Open Source, 
however, is not concerned with patents, copyrights, or keen business savvy in 
a proprietary world.  Prior art, public domain, and ethics control in our 
world.
thanks,
Tom Poe
Reno, NV
http://www.studioforrecording.org/
http://www.ibiblio.org/studioforrecording/
http://renotahoe.pm.org/