Raleigh, NC
Travis Kepley is a Senior Instructor at Red Hat where he helps employees, partners and customers understand how Open Source Software can create a better IT and business infrastructure. Travis started at Red Hat in January of 2008 as a Technical Support Engineer before becoming a Solutions Architect prior to moving to his current role. Travis graduated from the University of North Carolina at Greensboro and now lives in Raleigh with his wife and dog. When not extolling the virtues of open source, Travis is found fishing as well as playing and recording music.
Authored Comments
So I've followed the Bilski case and other cases in other courts over the years and have a few thoughts on things that need to be fixed asap.
You touch on the first thought that always enters my mind pretty well. That is, juries and judges and lawyers are made up of the general public. I know from my line of work that most people in the general public barely know the difference in Windows and Office--let alone the nuances of a closed vs open model. This problem is huge, and it's coloring legislature beyond software patents (see the problems with net neutrality and the privacy acts implemented over the past few decades).
This problem isn't unique, surely judges, lawyers and juries have dealt with unfamiliar territory before. Part of a trial is educating the members on what is being tried. The problem is that we are dealing with something that EVERYONE in that courtroom uses on a day to day basis. Yet they know nothing of how it works. (Part of this is because of problems with closed source) So they have assumptions about the tools and the concepts that are fundamentally colored and lopsided by the giants in the industry and they see it as this is just how it is. So when companies like Canonical, Red Hat, Novell etc come in that they know much less about in terms of licensing and devel models, there's an uphill battle just to show that our way is just as viable and right as any other.
The only way to fix this is to make things more transparent. It's a matter of time and this will only get better.
The second issue is very unique to open source. If I as a developer write a piece of code to solve a problem I have, it is very cost and time prohibitive of me to research to see if a patent for this exists. Even if I find one, I'd have to hire a lawyer to know if I'm risking violating something. No hobbyist developer is going to take the time to do this. So then the code is released to the public as open source. It takes hold. Now the code is on everything from personal computers, to cell phones to toasters. And then a patent troll recognizes something in the code or functionality of the software and well, there you have it.
Wow that was a long post--but I think you get the idea. Great read!
android's market share continues to rise. so i guess it depends on how you want to be perceived. Microsoft is notorious for being extremely corporate, but also fragmented (especially in the phone market). It failed them. We'll see where Windows Phone 7 or whatever goes. But so far there is definitely the right balance that you have to strike. I kinda like giving carriers and handset manufacturers a platform that is neutral and letting the proverbial best man win. But that can be seen as a weakness if you happen to buy into the worst of the phones...Apple will continue to use this as a weak point, Google will continue to argue its a strong point.