5 ms·

AVM is notorious for GPL violations. I cannot say anything about these patents (aside from stating the fact that all software patents are bogus, because math c

by ibotty 3y ago

AVM is notorious for GPL violations. I cannot say anything about these patents (aside from stating the fact that all software patents are bogus, because math cannot be patented), but I would not be surprised if they intentionally violated them.

radicalbyte 3y ago
I wasn't aware of that, do you have sources? It's really odd seeing Chinese companies taking someone to court for IP infringement given that that is the modus operandi of Chinese companies and has been for decades.
- sgift 3y ago
  Nothing weird about it, has also been part of their MO for a long time. If a Chinese company infringes it's okay in their mind cause they have to "catch up", but if they can use it to go against Non-Chinese companies: Bring it on.
- lucubratory 3y ago
  The PRC started enforcing US/Berne copyrights quite seriously for big companies 5-10 years ago, after negotiations with the US under the Obama administration. They actually licence, buy, or invent huge amounts of IP today, straight rip-offs in China now are mostly just small time hustlers on Alibaba that everyone hates. For example, Huawei spends gigantic amounts of money on R&D, equivalent to Apple and more than Samsung. Part of those negotiations would have been that China is not unfairly excluded from being able to own IP and prosecute others for the same laws it was agreeing to be subject to.
- ibotty 3y ago
  https://github.com/Freetz-NG/freetz-ng/discussions/134 https://github.com/Freetz-NG/freetz-ng/discussions/134 is the first I could find re getting the sources. Note, that the GPL requires the sources in "the preferred form" and that includes a way to build them (if AVM has a way to build the sources, which they certainly have). Last time I got (or a customer had) a AVM box I requested the sources and got nothing that could even build (invalid C files, AFAIR).
arp242 3y ago
What GPL violations? I can't really find anything on than a single case from 2011 where AVM tried to prevent another company from distributing modified firmware for their routers. There's a lot of things you can say about that, but it's arguably not really a "GPL violation" as commonly understood, and a single incident in almost 40 years of history doesn't make a company "notorious".
- jeroenhd 3y ago
  Back in 2020 they also attempted to stop the sale of modified AVM second hand products running custom firmware based on the code they had to publish because of the GPL restrictions. They're still trying very hard to prevent people from modifying their hardware after purchase. The freedom to take a device and modify it to run your own changes is what the GPL is all about. Let's not forget the modern open source movement was the result of someone not being able to load a custom font into a printer. Do you think Stallman would've been satisfied if Xerox had given him the source code he asked for, but then indicated they'd sue him if he tried to load any modified software onto the printer? AVM's interpretation of the license ("you can modify the GPL software but you're not allowed to flash it onto the device") was shot down by the court, and rightly so. I think a company actively going after another to prevent exercising the software freedoms granted by the GPL makes them deserving of being called "notorious". It's a shitty practice in general, but it's especially shitty when you do it for GPL firmware.
  - arp242 3y ago
    > Back in 2020 they also attempted to stop the sale of modified AVM second hand products running custom firmware I can't find anything on that. (and it's not that I disbelieve you, but details do matter, so very high-level descriptions isn't something I can really do anything with).
    - pantalaimon 3y ago
      https://www.heise.de/select/ct/2020/8/2006507573746296454 https://www.heise.de/select/ct/2020/8/2006507573746296454
helsinkiandrew 3y ago
The patent is about how packets could be structured and sent on a wireless network, so not necessarily a "software patent". https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search/family/058186732/publication/EP3337077A1?q=pn%3DEP3337077A1%3F https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search/family/0581867...
- smashed 3y ago
  It seems to be about the "structure" of a packet, meaning bit fields that indicate if the packet is for a single user or multicast? That seems more to me like a mere protocol convention, exactly the kind of stuff that should be in a standard communication protocol just so everyone agrees on the same fields. How is that a new "invention"?

by ibotty 3y ago

radicalbyte 3y ago

I wasn't aware of that, do you have sources? It's really odd seeing Chinese companies taking someone to court for IP infringement given that that is the modus operandi of Chinese companies and has been for decades.

sgift 3y ago
Nothing weird about it, has also been part of their MO for a long time. If a Chinese company infringes it's okay in their mind cause they have to "catch up", but if they can use it to go against Non-Chinese companies: Bring it on.
lucubratory 3y ago
The PRC started enforcing US/Berne copyrights quite seriously for big companies 5-10 years ago, after negotiations with the US under the Obama administration. They actually licence, buy, or invent huge amounts of IP today, straight rip-offs in China now are mostly just small time hustlers on Alibaba that everyone hates. For example, Huawei spends gigantic amounts of money on R&D, equivalent to Apple and more than Samsung. Part of those negotiations would have been that China is not unfairly excluded from being able to own IP and prosecute others for the same laws it was agreeing to be subject to.
ibotty 3y ago
https://github.com/Freetz-NG/freetz-ng/discussions/134 https://github.com/Freetz-NG/freetz-ng/discussions/134 is the first I could find re getting the sources. Note, that the GPL requires the sources in "the preferred form" and that includes a way to build them (if AVM has a way to build the sources, which they certainly have). Last time I got (or a customer had) a AVM box I requested the sources and got nothing that could even build (invalid C files, AFAIR).

arp242 3y ago

What GPL violations? I can't really find anything on than a single case from 2011 where AVM tried to prevent another company from distributing modified firmware for their routers. There's a lot of things you can say about that, but it's arguably not really a "GPL violation" as commonly understood, and a single incident in almost 40 years of history doesn't make a company "notorious".

jeroenhd 3y ago
Back in 2020 they also attempted to stop the sale of modified AVM second hand products running custom firmware based on the code they had to publish because of the GPL restrictions. They're still trying very hard to prevent people from modifying their hardware after purchase. The freedom to take a device and modify it to run your own changes is what the GPL is all about. Let's not forget the modern open source movement was the result of someone not being able to load a custom font into a printer. Do you think Stallman would've been satisfied if Xerox had given him the source code he asked for, but then indicated they'd sue him if he tried to load any modified software onto the printer? AVM's interpretation of the license ("you can modify the GPL software but you're not allowed to flash it onto the device") was shot down by the court, and rightly so. I think a company actively going after another to prevent exercising the software freedoms granted by the GPL makes them deserving of being called "notorious". It's a shitty practice in general, but it's especially shitty when you do it for GPL firmware.
- arp242 3y ago
  > Back in 2020 they also attempted to stop the sale of modified AVM second hand products running custom firmware I can't find anything on that. (and it's not that I disbelieve you, but details do matter, so very high-level descriptions isn't something I can really do anything with).
  - pantalaimon 3y ago
    https://www.heise.de/select/ct/2020/8/2006507573746296454 https://www.heise.de/select/ct/2020/8/2006507573746296454

helsinkiandrew 3y ago

The patent is about how packets could be structured and sent on a wireless network, so not necessarily a "software patent". https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search/family/058186732/publication/EP3337077A1?q=pn%3DEP3337077A1%3F https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search/family/0581867...

smashed 3y ago
It seems to be about the "structure" of a packet, meaning bit fields that indicate if the packet is for a single user or multicast? That seems more to me like a mere protocol convention, exactly the kind of stuff that should be in a standard communication protocol just so everyone agrees on the same fields. How is that a new "invention"?