Re: patent on O_ATOMICLOOKUP [Re: [PATCH] loopable tmpfs (2.4.17)]

Andreas Dilger
2002-05-24T22:01:00Z

On May 24, 2002 17:18 -0400, Karim Yaghmour wrote:
> Just wanting to put the record straight here about the rtlinux patent.

IANAL or an embedded software expert, but...

> I've been involved in fighting this patent for the last 2 years. During
> this time, I have met and talked with many people about this issue. Today,
> I can assure you that the rtlinux patent is definitely a show-stopper for
> Linux.
>
> It is no wonder that the established embedded vendors (WindRiver, QNX,
> etc.) feel no threat from Linux. They know that every time Linux will
> be evaluated, it will be put aside because of the patent.

What, so there are _no_ patents or other restrictions on any of the
commercial embedded OS vendor products? I would imagine that you need
to pay some sort of license fee to those vendors in order to use their
code for products you sell.

I imagine that the rtlinux patent is also available for license, and
will only have a small per-usage fee <= other commercial license fees.
If not then the patent holder is foolish and there is no point in having
the patent in the first place.

Cheers, Andreas

PS - I'm not in favour of patents for Linux at all, but saying "you
can't use rtlinux because of the patent" doesn't make sense.

PPS- I also think "defensive patents" on Linux are also a bad idea,
because (a) the Linux source code is surely "published" and any
ideas therein already constitute prior art for the sake of
defending a patent infringement suit, and (b) since patents can
be bought and sold any "defensive patents" might fall into the
wrong hands if the patent holder goes bankrupt and the assets are
sold off to the highest bidder - bad news for the entire Linux
community.
--
Andreas Dilger