On the Oracle v. Google litigation announcement, here's something that I don't see anyone else mentioning yet. On the Oracle patents, in a post-Bilski world, the right question would seem to be: Are *any* of the asserted Oracle patents tied to a specific machine?

Here are just some among many takes on a talk about software patents and the Bilski case, courtesy of Professor Eben Moglen
Paula Rooney: Moglen: Bilski decision set back patent reform for more than a decade

Many have already opined about the Oracle v. Google lawsuit filed last week. As you might expect, I'm not that worried about what company sues what company for some heap of cash; those sort of for-profit wranglings just aren't what concerns me. Rather, I'm focused on what this event means for the future of software freedom.

Contributor Agreements, also known as Contributor License Agreements (CLA), are increasingly being adopted by open source projects. This article explains the purpose of these Contributor Agreements.

Software patents are dangerous and costly to business and the community. Please sign this letter to support abolishing patents on software.

The Software Freedom Conservancy has won a default judgement against Westinghouse Digital Electronics in its action against 14 companies over GPL violations

Efforts to protect net neutrality that involve government regulation have always faced one fundamental obstacle: the substantial danger that the regulators will cause more harm than good for the Internet. The worst case scenario would be that, in allowing the FCC to regulate the Internet, we open the door for big business, Hollywood and the indecency police to exert even more influence on the Net than they do now.

This interview is part of a series following the Supreme Court's Bilski decision, which left the laws on what you can get a patent on largely as they are, after a four-justice minority failed to ban "business method" patents.