Re: Patent issues highlighted by Linux kernel audit

[threeseas]

Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article <pan.2004.10.18.17.12.40.811414@that.google.thingy>,
>  Craig Kelley <namonai@that.google.thingy> wrote:
>
>
> > On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 22:37:34 +0300, Abdullah Ramazanoglu wrote:
> >
> >
> > > begin  Yazid dedi ki:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >
> > > > hmm, when the barn is open and the sheeps eat freely on the grassfield, the
> > > > wolf won't be far away. This is not good.
> > >
> > > Exactly. I think we have a serious leadership problem.

[snip]

> > Imagine that it's a huge poker game.  All these tech companies "own" so
> > many patents, that nobody is willing to call; because once someone calls,
> > then everyone will have to throw down.
>
>
> What I think actually happens among the big companies is that they sign 
> omnibus cross-licensing agreements for their patent portfolios.  IBM and 
> Microsoft presumably have an agreement that allows each to make use of 
> the other's patents freely.
>
> But I wonder how Linux fits into this.  IBM might be safe from an 
> infringement lawsuit, but that doesn't necessarily extend to the vendors 
> that they purchase Linux from.  IBM might threaten to terminate the 
> cross-licensing agreement if Microsoft goes after the Linux vendors; but 
> if they did that, they would suddenly be infringing lots of Microsoft 
> patents.  So this could be a dangerous step for them to take.

Yeah thats right, the patent stack game, mines bigger then yours and by 
this percentage, so you pay me this amount to stay out of court.

Hmmm, so if this wasn't going on, we'd already reached the broken patent 
camels back and would have already been forced to correct the 
fundamental underlying problem with the software patent issue.

Now doesn't this create something of a colusion against any small 
company or person?