Newsgroup: it.comp.os.dibattiti
Titolo: [Brevetti software] Shuttleworth: "Microsoft non è la vera minaccia".

Stimolante post di Mark Shuttleworth in merito ai timori e alle più o 
meno velate minacce di questi ultimi giorni in tema di brevetti software.
Molto interessante ed equilibrata la sua percezione di Microsoft, 
tutt'altro che negativa: mi auguro che BArrYZ non perda la ragione per 
questo ;-P.
Buona lettura.
http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/118
"Much has been written about Microsoft’s allegation of patent 
infringements in Linux (by which I’m sure they mean GNU/Linux ;-) ). I 
don’t think Microsoft is the real threat, and in fact, I think Microsoft 
and the Linux community will actually end up fighting on the same side 
of this issue.
I’m in favour of patents in general, but not software or business method 
patents. I’ll blog separately some day about why that’s the case, but 
for the moment I’ll just state for the record my view that software 
patents hinder, rather than help, innovation in the software industry.
And I’m pretty certain that, within a few years, Microsoft themselves 
will be strong advocates against software patents. Why? Because 
Microsoft is irrevocably committed to shipping new software every year, 
and software patents represent landmines in their roadmap which they are 
going to step on, like it or not, with increasing regularity. They can’t 
sit on the sidelines of the software game - they actually have to ship 
new products. And every time they do that, they risk stepping on a 
patent landmine.
They are a perfect target - they have deep pockets, and they have no 
option but to negotiate a settlement, or go to court, when confronted 
with a patent suit.
Microsoft already spends a huge amount of money on patent settlements 
(far, far more than they could hope to realise through patent licensing 
of their own portfolio). That number will creep upwards until it’s 
abundantly clear to them that they would be better off if software 
patents were history.
In short, Microsoft will lose a patent trench war if they start one, and 
I’m sure that cooler heads in Redmond know that.
But let’s step back from the coal-face for a second. I have high regard 
for Microsoft. They produce some amazing software, and they made 
software much cheaper than it ever was before they were around. Many 
people at Microsoft are motivated by a similar ideal to one we have in 
Ubuntu: to empower people for the digital era. Of course, we differ 
widely on many aspects of the implementation of that ideal, but my point 
is that Microsoft is actually committed to the same game that we free 
software people are committed to: building things which people use every 
day.
So, Microsoft is not the real patent threat to Linux. The real threat to 
Linux is the same as the real threat to Microsoft, and that is a patent 
suit from a person or company that is NOT actually building software, 
but has filed patents on ideas that the GNU project and Microsoft are 
equally likely to be implementing.
Yes, Nathan, I’m looking at you!
As they say in Hollywood, where there’s a hit there’s a writ. And Linux 
is a hit. We should expect a patent lawsuit against Linux, some time in 
the next decade.
There are three legs to IP law: copyright, trademark and patents. I 
expect a definitive suit associated with each of them. SCO stepped up on 
the copyright front, and that’s nearly dealt with now. A trademark-based 
suit is harder to envisage, because Linus and others did the smart thing 
and established clear ownership of the “Linux” trademark a while ago. 
The best-practice trademark framework for free software is still 
evolving, and there will probably be a suit or two, but none that could 
threaten the continued development of free software. And the third leg 
is patent law. I’m certain someone will sue somebody else about Linux on 
patent grounds, but it’s less likely to be Microsoft (starting a trench 
war) and more likely to be a litigant who only holds IP and doesn’t 
actually get involved in the business of software.
It will be a small company, possibly just a holding company, that has a 
single patent or small portfolio, and goes after people selling 
Linux-based devices.
Now, the wrong response to this problem is to label pure IP holders as 
“patent trolls”. While I dislike software patents, I deeply dislike the 
characterisation of pure IP holders as “patent trolls”. They are only 
following the rules laid out in law, and making the most of a bad 
system; they are not intrinsically bad themselves. Yes, Nathan, all is 
forgiven ;-) . One of the high ideals of the patent system is to provide 
a way for eccentric genius inventors to have brilliant insights in 
industries where they don’t have any market power, but where their 
outsider-perspective leads them to some important innovation that 
escaped the insiders. Ask anyone on the street if they think patents are 
good, and they will say, in pretty much any language, “yes, inventors 
should be compensated for their insights”. The so-called “trolls” are 
nothing more than inventors with VC funding. Good for them. The people 
who call them trolls are usually large, incumbent players who 
cross-license their patent portfolios with other incumbents to form a 
nice, cosy oligopoly. “Trolling” is the practice of interrupting that 
comfortable and predictably profitable arrangement. It’s hard to feel 
any sympathy for the incumbents at all when you look at it that way.
So it’s not the patent-holders who are the problem, it’s the patent system.
What to do about it?
Well, there are lots of groups that are actively engaged in education 
and policy discussion around patent reform. Get involved! I recently 
joined the FFII: Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure, which 
is doing excellent work in Europe in this regard. Canonical sponsored 
the EUPACO II conference, which brought together folks from across the 
spectrum to discuss patent reform. And Canonical also recently joined 
the Open Invention Network, which establishes a Linux patent pool as a 
defensive measure against an attack from an incumbent player. You can 
find a way to become part of the conversation, too. Help to build better 
understanding about the real dynamics of software innovation and 
competition. We need to get consensus from the industry - including 
Microsoft, though it may be a bit soon for them - that software patents 
are a bad thing for society."
SALUTONI,
WindoM

 
http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/118
Mi spiace dissentire, ma l'autore sembra abbia fumato qualcosa
di veramente buono prima di scrivere l'articolo.
Non vedo nessuna intenzione da parte di mamma MS di rinunciare
al sistema dei brevetti, visto che e' uno dei modi che le garantiscono
la protezione della sua proprieta' intellettuale e che non troppo
tempo
fa ha fatto opera di lobbying [1] presso l'Unione Europea perche'
anche qui venisse introdotta la brevettabilita' del software: non sono
passati decenni, forse un anno.
C:\>iao Angelo
[1]  Non solo lei ovviamente, ma e' lei l'oggetto della discussione:
      ti e' chiaro, uomo con la lingua piu' grande del cervello? [2]
[2] Non mi sto riferendo all'OP