Re: Intel Fellow and cultural anthropologist Genevieve Bell to keynote linux.conf.au 2016 Geelong

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 02:34:33PM +0200, ac wrote:
> > joined Intel in 1998. She has been granted a number of patents for
> > consumer electronics innovations throughout her career, with
> > additional patents in the user experience space pending,

(I was surprised to see that mentioned in a bio written for an LCA
speaker too)

> Question: How does Linux AU feel about patents in general?

The LA submission to the Aus/USA FTA enquiry said:

 "The only use of patents against [Open Souce] technology can be to
  eliminate Open Source projects as competition, reducing consumer
  choice and doing significant damage to Australian competitiveness
  and infrastructure."

 "The damage of software patents goes beyond Open Source: a number of
  studies have indicated that software patents are reducing innovation."

http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/wopapub/house/committee/jsct/usafta/subs/SUB183_pdf.ashx

While the concept of software patents exists, though, patents can be
held defensively, though, so just having them isn't necessarily a bad
thing for open source. See Red Hat's statement, eg:

http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html

The Open Invention Network is a group of companies that make something
of a pact out of that approach (the NATO of open source?):

http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/about-us/members/
http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/community-of-licensees/

Intel aren't a member or licensee of the Open Invention Network afaict.

They are mentioned in the original press release of the OSDL "Patent
Commons":

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/osdl-launches-online-patent-commons-reference-library-55593557.html

but they don't seem to have actually contributed any patents?

http://www.patentcommons.org/commons/contributorsearch.php

I couldn't find a statement on how Intel will use their patents wrt open
source software; the closest I could find was this statement endorsing
"fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory" licensing for patents required
by standards (which still doesn't mean "royalty-free" so isn't much use
for open source):

http://www.pijip.org/non-sdo-patent-commitments/

However I did find an article where Intel encourages others to avoid
patenting their own technology and just release it as open source:

http://www.innovationexcellence.com/blog/2011/09/12/intel-to-universities-no-patents-please-just-open-source/

On the other hand, many of the copyright licenses they use do include
a patent grant covering any patents used by the software they release
though, eg:

https://01.org/linuxgraphics/intel-linux-graphics-firmwares

Cheers,
aj