I am here speaking software patents. I was replying to a thread on G+, and wrote a very long reply, that indeed is a post. It's on Red Hat patent promise, which has some unfortunate language that can be interpreted as "in general software patents impede innovation", meaning that in some cases they don't. I think that my reply can be of more general interest and make an excerpt here, with a few minor edits.

The post

I hate to defend rich companies and not getting paid for it (not that it would be the first time ;-), but in this case I will make an exception, also because the people who conceived the strategy of registering software patents for defensive purposes are good friends and trustworthy Free Software friends. Red Hat is a company full of cash, which is eating chunks of market away from even richer companies. It makes software, Free Software, it contributes heavily to Linux, it has no proprietary exploitation of the software it makes.

Update: see the comment on the final judgment on the copyright protection of the API.

There has been a lot of noise in some areas of the Internet around what to make of the verdict that the jury has taken in the Oracle v. Google case.

For the benefit of the readers, here the questions and what the jury has answered. For Europeans, it is very odd to see a jury to decide in matters that are strongly legal in nature, but that's how it goes up there. Bear in mind, though, that the jury is only responsible for the assessment of the facts, it's up to the judge to have a final say about the law.

Also, bear in mind that the judge has instructed the jury to decide as if the API (Application Programming Interfaces) are a copyright subject, but that is just a speculative statement, the matter will be settled by the judge in its final decision.

Un nuovo numero della International Free and Open Source Software Law Review è stato pubblicato. Questo numero contiene, tra gli altri, un interessante articolo del mio amico Maurits Dolmans circa l'interazione tra i brevetti e gli standard, con un appello per gli Open Standards. Merita assoultamente di essere letto. Altrettanto notevole è un'introduzione a un documento che cerca di chiarire come le varie modalità di linking e altre interazioni tra software di differente provenienza possa funzionare – o non funzionare – in ambito copyleft, di Malcolm Bain.

Altre questioni "calde" coperte sono la brevettazione di software in Europa, di Noam Shemtov, e un articolo sul progetto, in qualche modo controverso, chiamato Project Harmony. Il suo scopo e funzionamento viene spiegato dall'Avvocato Amanda Brock. Per coloro che si interessanto di gare pubbliche, l'articolo di Mathieu Paapst spiega alcuni aspetti delle azioni agevolatrici in favore dell'open source, principalmente da un punto di vista economico, il che fa da appropriato complemento al mio articolo contenuto nel precedente numero. Coloro che amano leggere autori controversi, avranno piacere nel dissentire dall'articolo-piattaforma di Matt Asay.

Dài, andate a scaricarlo è [Libero | Gratis]!

Paypal has been reported closing Wikileaks' account through which it obtained donations. This is unacceptable and arbitrary. This is derogatory towards the associations and the thousands of common people who cared enough of their Freedom of Speech to spend money on this. This is why I have decided that if they don't want Wikileaks' money, they do not want mine either, and I have closed my account with them.

Here is what they wrote me:

Dear Carlo Piana,

FSUG Italia and Debian-it announce the traditional Perugia event during the upcoming Software Freedom Day 2010, on September 18th, 2010

Andy Updegrove has published his own take on the Rambus case, which he was following more closing from an US perspective. Andy is a leading authority when it comes to the law in the standards world, and beyond. We have had the opportunity to discuss this case earlier on, and I find his insight very valuable.