The Grokster decision has obvious implications for musicians and entertainers. But it contains an equally pointed message for IT officers charged with managing corporate intellectual property.
In MGM Studios v. Grokster, the Supreme Court took up the question of corporate liability when customers use a service to illegally trade copyrighted digital content. The key issue was whether Grokster took easily available steps to reduce any infringement.
Even before Grokster, the $5 billion intellectual-property infringement suit that the SCO Group brought against IBM drove home the urgency of figuring out who owns what in a software portfolio. But heightened awareness may not be enough to avert a future filled with litigation. That's because the software industry is undergoing a fundamental change in the way applications are being developed.
Gone is the era when software applications were coded from scratch. The ease of access to external components via the Internet has led to an explosion in component-based development. Today, applications are assembled Lego-style from in-house software components, a third-party module or two and some chunks of code from an open-source project.
The Grokster ruling has taught us that benign neglect won't get us off the hook.
If it's a major project, selected components may have been outsourced to an onshore or offshore consulting company. All third-party components have their own licenses--each with its own terms and conditions that can significantly affect the manner in which the resulting application can be distributed.
But a developer--coding away at midnight to meet a deadline--may not be thinking of the legal implications and business ramifications of dropping in that great module found at SourceForge.net, a repository of more than 100,000 open-source projects.
The tremendous benefits of component-based development are higher-quality applications, delivered more quickly. Developers spend less time reinventing the wheel. But when all is said and done, in a significant enterprise application consisting of thousands of components, it's often hard to pinpoint precisely where each component came from and which license governs it.
In most companies, there's a risky level of inconsistency and informality in the process of detecting and managing external software components and licenses. Companies are not setting out with the intent to violate another company's intellectual property.
Many organizations simply haven't had the time to react to the changing development landscape and get in front of the issue.
But the Grokster ruling has taught us that benign neglect won't get us off the hook. The Supreme Court held Grokster responsible in part because the company had not taken active steps to help prevent the illegal appropriation of intellectual property by its users. To prevent legal exposure, it's time to set policies to help ensure the intellectual-property integrity and licensing pedigree of the software applications that your internal and external teams are developing.
Progressive IT organizations, particularly those at the forefront of open-source development, have established multidisciplinary teams of senior IT management, senior developers, legal counsel and procurement specialists to develop appropriate policies. These teams develop procedures for incorporating third-party components (open source or commercial), covering source code access, modification, implementation and licensing. And going to the heart of the issue, it's important to institute a training program for developers on IP rights and licenses.
We are at a real turning point in the software industry, with open-source software changing the rules in favor of transparency and choice. Along with this transformation comes the responsibility to deal appropriately with intellectual property from many sources. Whether we are considering entertainment or enterprise software, awareness of intellectual-property integrity is growing as we better understand both the benefits and the downside of learning to live and work in this new era of collaboration and participation.
The Grokster case will now return to the district court, so stay tuned for further developments. But regardless of the final outcome, you can save your company time, expense and legal hassles by taking steps now to ensure that intellectual property is handled with respect in your organization.
And you'll sleep better.
Biography Mark Tolliver is CEO of Palamida, a company that supplies automated software monitoring, intellectual-property management and compliance in software code.
"The key issue was whether Grokster took easily available steps to reduce any infringement."
I don't recall the court saying that.
I recall their statement was that "Grokster actively induced infringement..had made it part of their business model...for profit" and so-forth. That's a little different than "failed to act affirmatively to to stop potential infringement."
"The key issue was whether Grokster took easily available steps to reduce any infringement."
I don't recall the court saying that.
I recall their statement was that "Grokster actively induced infringement..had made it part of their business model...for profit" and so-forth. That's a little different than "failed to act affirmatively to to stop potential infringement."
Legal and business milpications when using open source is right because it probably falls under the GPL. I am not sure what components people would grab from anywhere that have a license attached, but anyway, the big joke about this article is that there is no mention about software patents.
Software patents are infringed upon daily in pretty much any company. It's not that people WANT to infringe, it's that software _IS_ obvious. Several people will often come up with the same answer to the same problem. Not even mentionning that it is impossible for engineers to learn about patents as it takes too much tmie to decode a single one.
Of course, it is very hard to sue for patent on software because a lot of it is not visible in proprietary software (Microsoft is certainly very happy about that).
So, yes, business people, who only care about the bottom line which means not being obviously in breach, will just make sure that there is no obviously unlicensed component.
In the meantmie, companies will continue stealing/using BSD/GPL protected code without acknowledging it (or barely doing so). After all, that's how MS added TCP/IP to Windows.
Legal and business milpications when using open source is right because it probably falls under the GPL. I am not sure what components people would grab from anywhere that have a license attached, but anyway, the big joke about this article is that there is no mention about software patents.
Software patents are infringed upon daily in pretty much any company. It's not that people WANT to infringe, it's that software _IS_ obvious. Several people will often come up with the same answer to the same problem. Not even mentionning that it is impossible for engineers to learn about patents as it takes too much tmie to decode a single one.
Of course, it is very hard to sue for patent on software because a lot of it is not visible in proprietary software (Microsoft is certainly very happy about that).
So, yes, business people, who only care about the bottom line which means not being obviously in breach, will just make sure that there is no obviously unlicensed component.
In the meantmie, companies will continue stealing/using BSD/GPL protected code without acknowledging it (or barely doing so). After all, that's how MS added TCP/IP to Windows.
Chamtech's spray-on antenna uses a nano material to provide a low-power boost to antenna range. The wireless-in-a-can product may some day bring an end to unsightly cell towers.
Whether Apple will release a new iPad next month doesn't seem to be the question as much as what day it will happen. A new rumor has it down to the day.
Tommy Jordan, the man who shot his daughter's laptop for YouTube, gets a visit from police and child protection services. Oh, and Good Morning America.
Along with green-lighting Google's buy of Motorola, the Justice Department today OKs an Apple-Microsoft-RIM partnership deal to buy Nortel patents, and Apple's plan to acquire Novell patents.
EnerG2 opens a plant to make an engineered carbon that will improve performance of energy storage devices and make storage for start-stop hybrid cars less expensive.
There are a lot of things that AT&T's humongous Samsung Galaxy Note smartphone is, like a digital memo pad, a medium-size-reader, and a great photo companion.
As UC Berkeley students, the co-founders of "Back to the Roots" discovered they could grow mushrooms using recycled coffee grounds. Now their mushroom kit sells at grocery stores across the country.
I don't recall the court saying that.
I recall their statement was that "Grokster actively induced infringement..had made it part of their business model...for profit" and so-forth.
That's a little different than "failed to act affirmatively to to stop potential infringement."
I don't recall the court saying that.
I recall their statement was that "Grokster actively induced infringement..had made it part of their business model...for profit" and so-forth.
That's a little different than "failed to act affirmatively to to stop potential infringement."
Software patents are infringed upon daily in pretty much any company. It's not that people WANT to infringe, it's that software _IS_ obvious. Several people will often come up with the same answer to the same problem. Not even mentionning that it is impossible for engineers to learn about patents as it takes too much tmie to decode a single one.
Of course, it is very hard to sue for patent on software because a lot of it is not visible in proprietary software (Microsoft is certainly very happy about that).
So, yes, business people, who only care about the bottom line which means not being obviously in breach, will just make sure that there is no obviously unlicensed component.
In the meantmie, companies will continue stealing/using BSD/GPL protected code without acknowledging it (or barely doing so).
After all, that's how MS added TCP/IP to Windows.
Software patents are infringed upon daily in pretty much any company. It's not that people WANT to infringe, it's that software _IS_ obvious. Several people will often come up with the same answer to the same problem. Not even mentionning that it is impossible for engineers to learn about patents as it takes too much tmie to decode a single one.
Of course, it is very hard to sue for patent on software because a lot of it is not visible in proprietary software (Microsoft is certainly very happy about that).
So, yes, business people, who only care about the bottom line which means not being obviously in breach, will just make sure that there is no obviously unlicensed component.
In the meantmie, companies will continue stealing/using BSD/GPL protected code without acknowledging it (or barely doing so).
After all, that's how MS added TCP/IP to Windows.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://stephesblog.blogs.com/my_weblog/2005/07/palamida_fud_on.html" target="_newWindow">http://stephesblog.blogs.com/my_weblog/2005/07/palamida_fud_on.html</a>
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://stephesblog.blogs.com/my_weblog/2005/07/palamida_fud_on.html" target="_newWindow">http://stephesblog.blogs.com/my_weblog/2005/07/palamida_fud_on.html</a>