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

[Alan Cox]

> What, so there are _no_ patents or other restrictions on any of then
> 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.

Thousands of them. Some of them like the Siemens power management patent
really hurt Linux too.

> 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.

It means you have to file the patent first, which is a pain. The whole 
Software patent thing is a huge disaster and one they are lobbying very
hard to push into europe and via the backdoors of unaccountable
undemocratic bodies like the WTO. They have to, otherwise the demise of
the USA as a viable economy rapidly accelerates because its only the US
afflicted by this mess.

Those defensive patents also provide scope for trading stuff with other
companies, and finally never forget that if you own patents and say its
a stupid idea you carry a *lot* more weight.

I'd suggest Andrea does something else. Ask the Red Hat people for a formal
confirmation he can use it, just like IBM with RCU. I have this funny feeling
that he'll get an extremely positive response.

Alan