Linux.com

Feature: Legal

A survey of existing Linux patents

By Danny R. Graves on November 01, 2007 (8:00:00 PM)

Share    Print    Comments   

The Linux world has been all atwitter since Acacia Technologies Group filed a lawsuit against Red Hat and Novell alleging that their versions of Linux infringe on three patents. Just how big is the risk to Linux from patent lawsuits? One indication may come from a look at current US patent publications related to or mentioning Linux.

Computer programs, though often protected by copyright or trade secrets, cannot be directly patented unless they are used for something tangible, such as signal processing or hardware control. For example, an operating system could be patented as a business method or a method to control computer hardware. Even though Linux is open source, freeware, companies could hold patents that could be infringed by people using Linux in certain applications.

A patent consists of several parts, including the abstract, specification, and claims. The abstract is a concise summary of the specification, while the specification is a complete description of the invention. The claims are where the majority of the legalese is found and are generally difficult for non-lawyers to read.

The claims are the most important part of a patent from a legal point of view, since they define exactly what part or aspect of the invention is patented and, therefore, legally protected. From a technical point of view, the specification is often the most useful, since it is a complete technical description of the invention and, usually, has less of the legalese that is found in the claims. If a feature is found in the claims, then it will definitely be found in the specification. However, a feature may be discussed in the specification but not in the claims.

Searching methodology and notes

Searching the titles of patents can often uncover inventions that are closely related to a certain technology, although some inventors use titles (and claim language for that matter) that do not clearly indicate to what an invention pertains. For example, an inventor might use "Graphite Communication Instrument" as a title for a pencil. Still, it is often useful to search the title, abstract, claims, and the specification of patents for the item of interest.

To keep things simple, I searched issued US patents and pending patents (publications) for the term "Linux" in the title, abstract, claims, and the specification. In other words, I did not search for GNU, Red Hat, open source, free operating system, or other terms. I just searched for patents and publications that directly mention Linux. This simple search gives a general idea of what is happening related to Linux in the US patent arena.

Note that inventions that are listed in the issued patents database may also be listed in the publications database. This is because patent applications are left in the publication database even after a patent is issued, so there is some duplication between the two databases. Also, patent applications are not published until 18 months after the filing date (if they were filed on or after 11-29-2000), so many from 2006 and 2007 do not show up in the publication database yet. I performed all of the following searches on October 22.

Searching patents and patent publications for Linux

Searching the issued US patent database titles for "Linux" resulted in three hits, covering migrating from Linux to Windows (Centaris Corporation -- issued 2007), viewing Windows files on a Linux system (Gateway, Inc. -- issued 2007), and online diagnostics on Linux (IBM -- issued 2004). Searching the pending US patent publication database titles for "Linux" resulted in 16 hits related to inventions covering things such as diagnosing operating system resources supporting USB device driver development in Linux system (Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute, Korea - filed 2006), electronic devices with embedded Linux (Moxa Technologies, Taiwan -- filed 2005), and a mobile handset based on Linux with compression and decompression techniques (Bitfone Corporation, California - filed 2005).

Searching the issued US patent database abstracts for "Linux" resulted in 17 hits related to inventions concerning topics such as transferring resources between different operation systems (assignee not available - filed 2001), remote and automatically initiated data loading and data acquisition of airborne computers (assignee not available - filed 2002), and apparatus for remote installation of an operating system over a network connection (Akamai Technologies, Massachusetts -- filed 2002). Searching the pending US patent publication database abstracts for "Linux" resulted in 75 hits related to such things as a Web browser operating system (National Science foundation -- filed 2005), smoke alarm (assignee not available - filed 2003), and a method of implementing a Linux-based embedded system for mobile communication (Pantech Company, LTD, Korea - filed 2004).

Searching the issued US patent database claims for "Linux" resulted in 76 hits. Searching the pending US patent publication database claims for "Linux" resulted in 373 hits. Many of these patents and publications have claims that are dependent type claims that state something like "the device, method, or system of claim x where the operating system is Linux." One example is patent publication 20040221275 (Computer Associates Think, Inc.) which has independent claims directed to a method and apparatus for adapting for a kernel on a target system and also has dependent claims stating that the kernel is a Linux kernel.

Searching the issued US patent database specifications for "Linux" resulted in 4,697 hits with filing dates back as far as 1995. Searching the pending US patent publication database specifications for "Linux" resulted in 16,694 hits. Figure 1 shows the number of patents and publications per filing year that mention Linux in the specification. Note how the number of issued patents peaked in 2001, while the number of applications seems to be steadily increasing each year. Remember that 2006 and 2007 are partial years in that not all of the applications from those years have been published. These conflicting trends are likely due to many of the applications, from filing year 2002 and forward, still being in a pending status (waiting to be approved and issued as a patent or finally rejected). Given enough time for the applications to be completely examined, the issued patents will likely show the same upward trend for the same filing years.

While the statistics are interesting, the bottom line is that it would be wise to search the US patent database before commercially using the operating system in a particular application or adapting the Linux kernel for a particular application.

Share    Print    Comments   

Comments

on A survey of existing Linux patents

Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.

A survey of existing Linux patents

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 76.212.93.76] on November 01, 2007 09:09 PM
Your conclusion is awful. I could just as easily say, "The bottom line is that it would be wise to search the US patent database before commercially using ANY operating system in a particular application or adapting ANYONE ELSE'S WORK for a particular application." The GPL gives me the right to use Linux code in any way that I see fit provided that I give the same freedoms to others that were given to me.

Go shove your FUD.

#

axiomatic conseqences

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 66.122.165.195] on November 01, 2007 09:59 PM
With continued study and appearent success in areas of automation demonstrated by vehicles independantly negotiating a course. Perhaps a math magazine should debate the conseqence of seed programing and weather the inventor of counting in fact created every computer program that ever has is or will be created. This is suggested by way of various stipulations concerning patents that are filed with regards to content of orgin allowing subseqent content to be undisclosed but recognized as the consequence that follows the state of orgin. It appears that cirtain advances in society can be traced to a given field of study and then at time correlated to other areas of study, yet are an axiom or component of a more complex system. The primitive become more generalized and is seen as a leap forward.

#

That is not the complete list of Linux patents

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 203.212.157.222] on November 01, 2007 10:56 PM
There are not sue agreements from IBM and other companies. Ie if your product is open source and you don't have restriction from IBM shipping your program you can use there complete patent stock pile. Nice of them. IBM looks at open source as a development field that they might be able to get useful things out of.

Now you really have to be sure you don't need patents to stop a patent suit. http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/Osapa Open Source as prior art. This is were its different. Open Source will attempt to kill patent before paying. Reason why Redhat wants MS to lay there patents on the table so they can kill off as many as able before paying anything.

The true anti-patent move.

#

Signal processing *algorithms* are not tangible

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 124.168.197.231] on November 02, 2007 12:09 AM
"Computer programs, though often protected by copyright or trade secrets, cannot be directly patented unless they are used for something tangible, such as signal processing or hardware control,..."
Look at eg. United States Patent 6,859,816 Makino, et al. February 22, 2005, (assignee: Sony Corporation), filed January 25, 2001. This seems to be a patent for a case of the Fast Fourier Transform. The patent mentions nothing more tangible than an algorithm.

#

A survey of existing Linux patents

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 82.236.175.6] on November 02, 2007 01:42 PM
"the bottom line is that it would be wise to search the US patent database before commercially using the operating system"

Why commercially? As far as I know, patents cover _any_ usage, don't they? (second remark, it isn't linux specific).

#

A little patent knowledge can be a dangerous thing

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 97.81.50.250] on November 02, 2007 11:30 PM
First of all, claims containing, "...where the operating system is Linux" will not hold up in court. Having such claims in an allowed patent is a sign that some examiner didn't do his job. Claims with that sort of language are indefinite -- no one can tell what they mean. Linux? What does that mean? What distribution? What version? The meaning of the term "Linux" is subject to change. Therefore, these claims are indefinite & would not stand up to litigation.

Second, most patents that mention Linux in the specification do so as part of a laundry list of other operating systems. "This method is can function under any operating system including, but not limited to, Microsoft Windows, Microsoft NT, Microsoft XP, Unix, Linux ..." The point they are trying to make is that they claim all embodiments of the invention -- no matter what operating system it runs under.

Third, someone suggest that the GPL provides protection for infringers. This person is wrong. Let's say that you load a program that has the GPL, but that also infringes a patent. You can be sued for patent infringement. Don't think it will happen? That's what all those middle school kids thought when they downloaded music off the Internet.

Bottom line. The Linux operating system itself is not patented. But if portions of it use patented software without a license or if you load a program that violates a patent, you can be sued for infringement. You don't like it? Write your congress-critter. Get them to say that software cannot be patented. Until that happens, or until the Supreme Court changes its mind, software patents are here to stay -- and they apply to people using Linux just like anybody else.

#

Algorithms and signal processing

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 65.7.238.254] on November 03, 2007 01:39 AM
An algorithm becomes "tangible" when it is used to process a signal in that the signal exists in the real world and is not just an abstract idea like an equation. You can't touch an algorithm-processed signal but it can exist in the real world and you can put it to practical use.

#

A survey of existing Linux patents

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 71.89.53.115] on November 03, 2007 04:37 AM
Acacia again ? these are the same guys who went after the porn guys a few years ago for streaming video because they had a patent on "transmitting video and audio in digital form". why didn't they go directly after MS, apple, and Real ? because the had a bad patent then which eventually got invalidated AFAIK. they are SCO P2 troll lawyers looking for a check and produce nothing at it again.

#

A survey of existing Linux patents

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 82.212.23.209] on November 04, 2007 09:31 PM
"Even though Linux is open source, freeware,"

Do you even know what you're writing about?
Linux is not freeware, it's free software.

#

A survey of existing Linux patents

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 65.7.238.254] on November 07, 2007 02:14 PM
Good article...it is good to think about this stuff ahead of time.

#

A survey of existing Linux patents

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 71.158.205.72] on November 11, 2007 09:03 AM
US patent law is completely broken as there are companies who do nothing but buy old yet still valid patents and sue other companies.
I'm glad the EU has abolished software patents and if some lawyer from the US or some other country with a broken patent system tries to cause trouble in the EU they should arrest his/her butt and or deport them.
The only real fix is to do away with software patents and go with a copyright based regime.

#

A survey of existing Linux patents

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 127.0.0.1] on December 03, 2007 04:41 PM
If you are outside the US, go ahead and use Linux all you want. None of these patents can touch you anyway. If MS were serious about their patents being infringed by Linux, Steve Balmer would take time out from throwing chairs to tell his lawyers to sue someone. Is there a limitation for how long you can know about an infringement and not sue? Linux is open source, so MS et al should be able to sue pretty quickly. By not doing so, it can be argued that you don't care to enforce - surely you have a duty to limit your damages by notifying infringement as early as you can?

#

This story has been archived. Comments can no longer be posted.



 
Tableless layout Validate XHTML 1.0 Strict Validate CSS Powered by Xaraya