|
Red Hat & Novell Beat IP Innovation and in Marshall, Texas, too - Updated 2Xs |
|
Friday, April 30 2010 @ 10:33 PM EDT
|
Do you remember the patent infringement case IP Innovation filed against Red Hat and Novell in 2007? We looked for prior art, if you recall. Well, I'm very happy to tell you that Red Hat and Novell have prevailed in the litigation: Red Hat, Inc. (NYSE: RHT),
the world's leading provider of open source solutions, announced that today
a jury in federal court in Marshall, Texas, returned a verdict in favor of
Red Hat, Inc. and Novell, Inc. in a case alleging patent infringement
brought by IP Innovation LLC, a subsidiary of Acacia Research Corporation
and Technology Licensing Corporation.
The patents at issue were found to be invalid and worthless.
"This is the result we expected and we are gratified that the jury recognized the tremendous innovative value of open source software. The jury knocked out three invalid patents that were masquerading as a new and important inventions, when they were not," said Michael Cunningham, Executive Vice President at Red Hat. "We appreciate the jury's wisdom and remain committed to providing value to our customers, including through our Open Source Assurance program. We also remain stalwart in resisting bogus shakedown tactics."
Here's the final judgment [PDF].
The News & Observer tells us a bit more:IP Innovation sought royalties on all sales of Linux-based products.
Say, that's what SCO wanted, and Microsoft. Everyone wants to use IP bogo lawsuits to get money from Linux, it seems. Here are the Jury Instructions [PDF], which lays out for the jurors the position of the parties, so it will give you the best overview.
Dear U.S. Supreme Court,
Please will you address the software patent madness? In Re Bilski gives you an opportunity. .
Update: Back in March, the Patent Prospector provided some insight into the case, particularly with respect to plaintiff's efforts to inflate the value of the patent damages, and the reaction from the newly assigned judge, Judge Randall R. Rader, who excluded evidence from the plaintiff's expert in part. From the Order [PDF]:
A reliable reasonable royalty calculation depends on trustworthy evidence of both the royalty base and the royalty rate. Mr. Gemini invoked the "entire market value rule" in identifying the royalty base in this case. Under the entire market value rule, damages are recoverable only "if the patented apparatus was of such paramount importance that it substantially created the value of the component parts." Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co., Inc., 56 F.3d 1538, 1549 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). Therefore, "the patentee must prove that the patent-related feature is the basis for customer demand." Lucent Techs., 580 F.3d at 1336.In this case, IPI has accused Red Hat's and Novell's Linux-based operating systems of infringing the patents-in-suit, including the Enterprise Linux Desktop and Server products. IPI alleges that the operating systems' multiple virtual workspaces and workspace switching features infringe the patents-in-suit. In invoking the "entire market value rule," Mr. Gemini included 100% of Red Hat's and Novell's total revenues from sales of subscriptions to the accused operating systems in his proposed royalty base. Mr. Gemini's methodology however does not show a sound economic connection between the claimed invention and this broad proffered royalty base.
The claimed invention is but one relatively small component of the accused operating systems. The evidence shows that the workspace switching feature represents only one of over a thousand components included in the accused products. Mr. Gemini relies on an online user forum for a third-party product to show that some users tout a desktop switching feature as essential. However, selected users' statements in isolation and without a relationship to the actual claimed technology do not show an accurate economic measurement of total market demand for the switching feature, let alone its contribution to the demand for the entire product asserted as the royalty base. The workspace switching feature's small role in the overall product is further confirmed when one considers the relative importance of certain other features such as security, interoperability, and virtualization. Moreover this proffered evidence has no economic foundation.
Contrary to the proffer of Mr. Gemini, the record---even at this pretrial stage after discovery-suggests that users do not buy the accused operating systems for their workspace switching feature. Most of Red Hat's and Novell's accused sales come from their Server products, the majority of which are not connected to a display and thus do not take advantage of the workspace switching feature. Mr. Gemini made no effort to factor out of his proffered royalty base these products which do not even feature the claimed invention. Once again, this blatant oversight shows that Mr. Gemini did not use the type of reliable economic principles and methods required by Rule 702 for an economic damages expert. Also, the record shows that some accused operating systems are sold to the public with a default setting that does not enable the workspace switching feature. Mr. Gemini made no effort to factor out of his proffered royalty base those operating systems in which the user never affirmatively enables the claimed switching feature. In fact, he made no effort to even discern the percentage of users who would never enable or use the claimed feature. This aspect of his questionable methodology also shows inattention to the economic and factual data necessary for a reliable assessment of a compensatory royalty. Overall, Mr. Gemini never accounts for the record evidence that most users of the accused operating systems do not seem to use the workspace switching feature at all. Accordingly, the record cannot support the unfounded conclusion that the often-unused feature drives demand for a royalty base of 100% of the operating systems as a whole. In sum, this stunning methodological oversight makes it very difficult for this court to give any credibility to Mr. Gemini's assertion that the claimed feature is the "basis for customer demand." See Lucent Techs., 580 F.3d at 1336....
Accordingly, Mr. Gemini's current expert report improperly inflates both the royalty base and the royalty rate by relying on irrelevant or unreliable evidence and by failing to account for the economic realities of this claimed component as part of a larger system. This court hereby precludes Mr. Gemini from testifying at the trial ofthis case or otherwise presenting his opinions on the issue of damages based on his current expert report... The parties are reminded that expert testimony on the topic of damages will not be allowed absent a firm basis in accepted economic principles with an eye to the facts of this record.
Patent Prospector calls this attempted royalty inflation simple greed. Calculating damages is a hot issue in patent law -- and why wouldn't it be? -- and Patently O has an article on the latest, including the patent reform bill meandering through the back roads and hills and dales of Congress. Everyone knows it's a problem, but how to fix it, when the patent lobby loves its money? Judge Rader is, of course, a judge in the special patent appeals court, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, but sometimes he takes patent cases at the district court level. This was one such happy event, when he took over in late 2009 the Red Hat/Novell patent case from Judge Leonard Davis in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas. It was in March that he reminded plaintiffs they have to have solid evidence to support a broad damages theory and that the type of theory the plaintiffs had chosen, the "entire market value rule" can only be used when the feature that is patented is the "basis for customer demand" meaning that is why they buy the product. The law firm Morgan Lewis puts out a newsletter on IP news, and here's their take on Rader's role in this litigation [PDF]: Judge Randall Rader of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals periodically
takes a break from his appellate duties to preside over trials of patent
cases at the district court level. In one such case, IP Innovation, LLC v.
Red Hat, Inc. , Case No. 2:07-cv-447, Judge Rader on March 2, 2010, issued a
decision reminding lawyers, litigants, and expert witnesses that plaintiffs
must have a firm evidentiary foundation before submitting a broad damages
theory to the jury.
In late 2009, the parties in IP Innovation were preparing to try their case
before Judge Leonard Davis in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District
of Texas when they got a surprise—Judge Rader, sitting by designation, would
be presiding over the trial. In March, Judge Rader made his presence felt
when he issued an order completely excluding the proposed testimony of the
plaintiffs’ damages expert.
The asserted patents in this case involved a method for allowing computer
users to switch around among multiple different workspaces. The plaintiffs
and their expert accused the defendants’ Linux-based operating systems of
infringement, and sought to recover a royalty for each system in question
based on the value of the entire operating system. The plaintiffs’ damages
model was based on the theory known as the “entire market value rule,” which
can allow a patentee to collect damages based on the entire
market value of an accused instrumentality, even if the patented invention
is only one component of a larger apparatus. Under the facts of this case,
Judge Rader emphatically rejected the plaintiffs’ approach.
Judge Rader began by noting that the entire market value rule may only be
invoked where the patented feature forms “the basis for customer demand” for
the larger accused device. In this case, he found that “[t]he claimed
invention is but one relatively small component of the accused operating
systems. The evidence shows that the workplace switching feature represents
only one of over a thousand components included in the accused products.”
Although the plaintiffs’ expert pointed to some isolated statements about
the popularity of workplace switching in general, the court held that such
evidence had no “relationship to the actual claimed technology.”
Judge Rader went further and noted that the record in the case “suggests
that users do not buy the accused operating systems for their workspace
switching feature.” He noted that some accused products did not even include
the allegedly infringing feature, others did not have the feature enabled,
and, even in those products where it was included and enabled, many
consumers still did not use the feature.
In the decision, Judge Rader noted that the plaintiffs had tried to “shift
the burden” to the defendants by arguing that they had failed to produce
evidence sufficient for the plaintiffs’ expert to perform the kind of
analysis the court required. The court was unmoved, noting that it was the
plaintiffs’ burden to prove damages and that they “must show some plausible
economic connection between the invented feature and the accused operating
systems before using the market value of the entire product as the royalty
base.”
Clearly his role was significant, and so was the jury's. Once again I say, give me a jury any day, but a sensible and courageous judge is the cherry on top.
Update 2: There is a statement from Novell now also:
Novell announced that on Friday a jury in federal court in Marshall, Texas, returned a verdict in favor of Novell, Inc. and Red Hat, in a case alleging patent infringement brought by IP Innovation LLC. IP Innovation argued that the Linux operating system infringed three patents related to the display of multiple desktops and other desktop effects. All the patents at issue were found to be invalid by the jury.
“We are very pleased that the jury reached a verdict in favor of Linux and of open source,” said Jim Lundberg, Vice President, Legal. “We hope this verdict sends a strong and unequivocal message to others that Novell and the open source community will vigorously defend any unsupported attacks on Linux and on open source innovation. ” Amen to that.
|
|
Authored by: artp on Friday, April 30 2010 @ 10:58 PM EDT |
For corrections of fact, not opinion.
Title should give a clue to change: eror -> error
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: artp on Friday, April 30 2010 @ 11:03 PM EDT |
Anything not germane goes here.
No On topic, of topic, topical or otherwise relevant to whatever this article is
about. Violators may need topical anaesthetics. Or alternatively, they may be
forced to read drafts of tSCOg legal briefs, which are not brief, until their
brain is scrambled.....
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- I need retraining - Authored by: artp on Saturday, May 01 2010 @ 12:36 AM EDT
- Apple, H.264, Microsoft - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Saturday, May 01 2010 @ 12:52 AM EDT
- We know why... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 01 2010 @ 02:05 AM EDT
- It's a utility - Authored by: artp on Saturday, May 01 2010 @ 11:47 AM EDT
- x264 and Bluray - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 01 2010 @ 05:23 PM EDT
- Apple, H.264, Microsoft - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 01 2010 @ 05:33 PM EDT
- Apple, H.264, Microsoft - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 01 2010 @ 07:59 PM EDT
- Apple, H.264, Microsoft - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 01 2010 @ 08:11 PM EDT
- good article on H.264 at OSNews - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 01 2010 @ 08:30 PM EDT
- WHO cares we all use firefox now - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 02 2010 @ 02:13 PM EDT
- Software Patents stifle Innovation - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 03 2010 @ 11:18 AM EDT
- OT - what's up with UserFriendly? - Authored by: Totosplatz on Saturday, May 01 2010 @ 08:39 AM EDT
- NZ's second go at a three-strikes law - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 01 2010 @ 07:00 PM EDT
- Suggestion to PJ - Authored by: jmc on Saturday, May 01 2010 @ 07:11 PM EDT
- Why Mobile Patents are Such a Mess - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 01 2010 @ 09:35 PM EDT
- microsoft contributing to joomla - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 02 2010 @ 12:18 AM EDT
- More old caldera stuff available on wayback - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 02 2010 @ 11:57 AM EDT
- FSF & Open Source contributor knighted in Germany - Authored by: Peter Baker on Monday, May 03 2010 @ 02:40 AM EDT
- Los Angeles moving to Google Cloud based apps - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 03 2010 @ 08:22 AM EDT
- RCS for legal codices - Authored by: mojotoad on Monday, May 03 2010 @ 12:02 PM EDT
|
Authored by: artp on Friday, April 30 2010 @ 11:06 PM EDT |
Comments on articles in the sidebar. Note that the article will scroll off the
side soon, so include the title, and hopefully a URL.
Thank you.
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: YurtGuppy on Friday, April 30 2010 @ 11:24 PM EDT |
Did any of the examples of prior art provided by Groklaw readers make it into
the case?
---
just swimming round and round[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: NZheretic on Friday, April 30 2010 @ 11:25 PM EDT |
The 2000-2010 "Intellectual Property" boom is about to go the
way of the "Subprime" Mortgage, Dot-Com vapor startup, Junk
bond and Dutch Tulip futures. The Patent Troll Business Model
is inherently flawed, and just like the aforementioned
others, add nothing to a nations REAL economy.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Yossarian on Saturday, May 01 2010 @ 12:21 AM EDT |
Linux is a pretty valuable asset, and there are two ways to
get money out of it:
1) Follow GPL to the letter.
2) Sue till everybody pays.
It seems like #2 is the easy way - the code is open so you
can find all the proof you need without any discovery and
strike when you are *ready*.
But look can be deceiving...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 01 2010 @ 02:06 AM EDT |
Something similar is going to come up again in the future. And again, and
again, with different plaintiffs and different patents.
Eventually,
because there's a random element in jury decisions, one of them will win big.
Winning a jury verdict when you deserve to lose is a bit like throwing a double
6 with dice. The odds are against you, but if you keep trying, it will
eventually come up.
If you understand that, then you will also understand
that in the long run, a victory for one of these patent trolls is
certain. Long term, there is no solution as long as software can be
patented. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- This is only a temporary victory - Authored by: complex_number on Saturday, May 01 2010 @ 03:13 AM EDT
- RICO? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 01 2010 @ 09:00 AM EDT
- RICO? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 01 2010 @ 12:14 PM EDT
- I'm not so sure... - Authored by: kenryan on Saturday, May 01 2010 @ 06:58 PM EDT
- This is only a temporary victory - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 01 2010 @ 11:14 AM EDT
- This is only a temporary victory - Authored by: DannyB on Saturday, May 01 2010 @ 12:53 PM EDT
- If that were true, - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 01 2010 @ 05:03 PM EDT
- therefore, - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 03 2010 @ 02:23 AM EDT
- This is a gathering of facts - Authored by: jmhill on Sunday, May 02 2010 @ 10:19 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 01 2010 @ 03:42 AM EDT |
... getting identified as what it really is: not poverty, but intellectual
poverty.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Saturday, May 01 2010 @ 06:24 AM EDT |
And this happened in the Eastern Division of Texas?? Patent Troll Mecca?
I'm stunned.
---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Saturday, May 01 2010 @ 06:34 AM EDT |
From the jury instructions:
The ‘412, ‘521, and ‘183 patents
generally describe a computer based graphical user
interface that spans across
multiple workspaces. Within a workspace is a collection of display
objects,
called “tools,” that have visually distinguishable features (e.g., icons or
windows). The
display objects can be shared between workspaces. When a user
switches between workspaces
to perform different tasks, the display objects or
tools that are common among the workspaces
are displayed in the new workspace
and are perceptible as the same.
This is an exact description of
Windows desktop icons that appear for all users. I wonder why these guys didn't
go after Microsoft rather than Novell and Red Hat.
--- "When I say
something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Red Hat & Novell Beat IP Innovation and in Marshall, Texas, too - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 01 2010 @ 06:49 AM EDT
- Red Hat & Novell Beat IP Innovation and in Marshall, Texas, too - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 01 2010 @ 06:55 AM EDT
- Red Hat & Novell Beat IP Innovation and in Marshall, Texas, too - Authored by: tknarr on Saturday, May 01 2010 @ 03:04 PM EDT
- Apple - Spaces fits that description. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 01 2010 @ 05:29 PM EDT
- SunOS / Solaris CDE - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 01 2010 @ 09:54 PM EDT
- Apple and Microsoft had a license - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 01 2010 @ 10:59 PM EDT
- Windows wouldn't violate the patent - Authored by: Tolerance on Sunday, May 02 2010 @ 02:46 AM EDT
- I used to administer RH servers using this - Authored by: Tolerance on Sunday, May 02 2010 @ 02:54 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 01 2010 @ 10:32 AM EDT |
A SCO related tangent in this issue was the investment by Royce Technology Fund
in Acacia in the same time frame (2003-8) that the fund also put substantial
money into SCOX.
The mutual fund was the province of Jonathan Cohen. He was
on the air promoting his investment in early summer 2003, and featured it
prominently in his annual report.
The fund closed down with substantial
losses, and Cohen in no longer employed by Royce.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Prior art - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 01 2010 @ 12:34 PM EDT
|
Authored by: kattemann on Saturday, May 01 2010 @ 12:32 PM EDT |
The claims referred in the complaint are:
"at least claim 1 of the '412 patent",
"at least claim 3 of the '183 patent"
"at least claim 1 of the '521 patent".
So does this mean that only these claims and their dependent claims are
invalidated, or does it affect the rest of the claims as well?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Now what? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 01 2010 @ 01:08 PM EDT
|
Authored by: DannyB on Saturday, May 01 2010 @ 01:36 PM EDT |
Why? Because anyone with vision can see that Linux will be in everything before
long.
Try this experiment. Indulge me.
- Follow
this link to Sony's Open
Source Code Distribution Service.
- Click on Television.
<
li>Stop and catch breath. Wow, that's a lot of television models that have
Linux since 2003. And that's just Sony brand televisions.
- Pick a television
model. For instance, let's pick the model KDL-37M400
0. Click it.
That takes you to where you can download the Linux source code
for that model of television set.
Why Linux in a television set?
Remember: if it has a screen, if it has an on screen menu, if it has an
ethernet jack, WiFi, SD card support for multiple filesystems, if it has a web
based interface or control panel, if it has USB, etc., then it probably already
has Linux inside, and has had for years.
But now, Sony TV's will soon
be running Android.
Maybe Samsung TV's also.
Maybe others too (1,
2,
3,
4
).
But Linux is in everything else.
- Set top boxes
- TiVo
- Moxy (used by many local cable company DVR's)
- Roku
- Commercial devices running open source Boxee
- Phones
- Android (currently 65 phones
made by 18 manufacturers)
- Palm's WebOS
- LiMo
- Moto MAGX
- MeeGo
- Maemo (Nokia)
- Moblin
- Personal Media Players (some of them even
run Android, not just "linux")
- eBook readers
- Amazon
Kindle runs Linux
- Barnes & Noble's Nook runs Android (which is
Linux)
- GPS Navigation Units (eg, Tom Tom, Garmin, etc
all run Linux)
- Television Sets
- DVD players (can you say "on
screen menu")
- VCR's (can you say "on screen menu")
- Digital
cameras (can you say "on screen menu")
- Digital Photo Frames (can you
say SD card support, Internet, WiFi, BlueTooth, etc)
- Almost all of the
top-500 list of biggest supercomputers
- Linux has breathed new life into
the Mainframe market (just ask IBM) to consolidate modern
workloads
- Internet tablets (A whole bunch of Android powered tablets
coming in 2nd half 2010 to threaten the
iPad)
- Netbooks
- Smartbooks (eg, non x86
processors)
- Home office routers and WiFi routers
- Linksys (Cisco) a list of models so long it would make your head spin
- D-Link
- Netgear
- Asus
- dozens (yes
dozens) of other brands (check the DD-WRT website)
- Almost anything with an "embedded" web server
- example: printers with a web-based setup interface. (Just what do you think
is running that web server inside that printer or fax machine?)
I said a bunch of tablets coming that run Android, here are
some links:
There are more current links than
I've provided here. (See Phandroid.com)
Is anyone wondering why all
the lazy vultures who don't actually build products or innovate are lining up to
get a cut of every Linux "sale" ?
They want a Linux "tax". That's what SCO
originally wanted. They see something big. (And it's even bigger than I'm
suggesting here. Just to give you a clue the mobile device market will be much
bigger than "desktop computers". Nevermind everything else, and stuff I have
not mentioned.)
Maybe Android will become the standard user interface
for appliances in your home. (see Appliances last January at CES 2010)
The leeches want to suck money from those who work and build actual
products. They see Linux as the way to leech their "fair share".
--- The
price of freedom is eternal litigation. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- But, does Android have to run on top of Linux? - Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Saturday, May 01 2010 @ 02:19 PM EDT
- WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 01 2010 @ 03:55 PM EDT
- Not quite all these yet! Some very soon, a few probably never.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 01 2010 @ 04:44 PM EDT
- Android IS Linux - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 01 2010 @ 08:36 PM EDT
- Not any more, but it may be again - Authored by: Tolerance on Sunday, May 02 2010 @ 03:04 AM EDT
- Not any more, but it may be again - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 02 2010 @ 08:40 AM EDT
- Not any more, but it may be again - Authored by: Vic on Sunday, May 02 2010 @ 09:30 AM EDT
- Not any more, but it may be again - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 02 2010 @ 03:26 PM EDT
- Plain wrong - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 02 2010 @ 04:19 PM EDT
- Plain wrong - Authored by: Vic on Sunday, May 02 2010 @ 07:28 PM EDT
- Plain wrong - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 02 2010 @ 08:09 PM EDT
- Plain wrong - Authored by: JimDiGriz on Sunday, May 02 2010 @ 08:44 PM EDT
- Plain wrong - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 03 2010 @ 05:19 AM EDT
- Plain wrong - Authored by: Vic on Monday, May 03 2010 @ 08:21 AM EDT
- Not any more, but it may be again - Authored by: RichardB on Monday, May 03 2010 @ 04:59 AM EDT
- Not any more, but it may be again - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 02 2010 @ 12:39 PM EDT
- Android IS Linux - Authored by: DannyB on Monday, May 03 2010 @ 09:07 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 01 2010 @ 04:13 PM EDT |
It is so nice, having spent time groveling through my
records, to know it was worthwhile (I was consulted due to
having worked in this area, on the prior art directly). It
may be nice to get money to do such boring work, but I can
tell you I much prefer to invent new technology than to
deal with stupid patents.
The interesting thing is that the patents at issue in the
case were being twisted: the trolls were trying to twist the
the patents to apply to almost everything; including such
things as simple login session management.
Knocking them out is a relief. My thanks to Red Hat for
fighting the fight.
Unfortunately there are other horrific patents being trolled
I am aware of (in a different area where I have also worked)
much worse and more insidious that have not been so far. So
long as the patent system is so broken, we will be in
constant danger.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 01 2010 @ 07:01 PM EDT |
Please will you address the software patent madness?
In Re Bilski gives you an opportunity. .
---
appears in the above story in <blockquote>
Where did the quote come from?
Or is it just PJ formalising our communal prayer?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 02 2010 @ 02:57 AM EDT |
It's a shame Judge Randall Rader isn't hearing the SCO/Novel/IBM stuff as it
sounds like he really doesn't tolerate any BS from anybody.. the judge we have
now seem intent on giving SCO everything they as for regardless of how many
times others have shot them down. I would not be surprised if he didn't give
the copyrights to SCO now despite Kimbel and the jury. I hope that is a false
impression, I really do.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 02 2010 @ 04:53 AM EDT |
Someone is really having its fair share of fun: found in Linux header files, for
instance:
linux/if_packet.h:
/***********************************************************
*****************
****************************************************************************
***
*** This header was automatically generated from a Linux kernel header
*** of the same name, to make information necessary for userspace to
***
call into the kernel available to libc. It contains only constants,
***
structures, and macros generated from the original header, and thus,
***
contains no copyrightable information.
***
****************************************************************************
****************************************************************************/
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 02 2010 @ 01:23 PM EDT |
In any event it is not Linux or GNU/Linux that implements the feature, it is the
GUI, and the GUI can run on other platforms... like Windows (KDE). The GUI is
simply an application on top of the CLI based O/S. These people have no clue.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 02 2010 @ 06:48 PM EDT |
The judge has got it right. Aside from the fact that the "patent" is
merely an extension of spawning another process, I find the multiple desktops
sometimes switch on me when I don't intend to. I prefer everything to be
available on a single desktop. Easier for me to use, so I reset my system to a
single desktop. (Also, I must confess, I'm using a free, as in beer, download).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 03 2010 @ 11:44 AM EDT |
One question. Did he invalidate the patents or just throw the case out because
the damages were calculated incorrectly? The article name and summary make it
sound like he invalidated the patents. But, in reading the quoted portion of
the order, he didn't. All he did was threw out the expert testimony on damages
because he used a flawed system to calculate them. And that caused the case to
fall apart.
So, I'm not sure if this is a "victory" for Linux as much as it was a
setback for IP Innovations. Although I DO HOPE that he invalidated their
Patents as well.
Have a great day:) (And IANAL)
Patrick.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|