Sponsored link
Serve your customers, not your servers, with VERIO Linux VPS. Full-access test-drive here.
| Weekly edition | Kernel | Security | Distributions | Search |
| Archives | Calendar | Subscribe | Write for LWN | LWN.net FAQ |
Prior art and obviousness
Prior art and obviousness
Posted Apr 25, 2007 19:43 UTC (Wed) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625)In reply to: Prior art and obviousness by filker0
Parent article: Apple sued over vague user interface patent (ars technica)
Smart patent trolls are likely to go ahead and give GPL projects a permission letter (reasons to do this), to reduce the amount of community prior art finding. Something like the Blackboard strategy, only before filing an infringement case.
(Log in to post comments)
Prior art and obviousness
Posted Apr 25, 2007 20:53 UTC (Wed) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
That's only going to be true to a certain extent.
In situations were open source companies produce software that rivals closed source company fro market share then they _will_ sue you. It doesn't matter if both companies are smart and run by good people, their shareholders will demand that they do something to stop the loss of business to other companies.
Prior art and obviousness
Posted Apr 26, 2007 1:09 UTC (Thu) by gdt (subscriber, #6284) [Link]
Regarding Blackboard, I think they also misunderstood their users. Many educational institutions are huge: they create and use a massive amount of software. Being so large they run a lot of competing software: Word and OpenOffice, Windows and MacOS and Linux, MySQL and Oracle, SAS and SPSS and R. And in this case, Blackboard and Moodle and home-grown systems.
Sure, universities might centrally prefer particular software for support reasons, Windows + Office for example. But only an insane university would prevent the use of alternatives; researchers get upset and leave when administrative roadblocks are placed in the way of getting the job done.
So when Blackboard threatened a patent suit against their competitors, the response of these large institutions was to feel threatened. And the simplest way to stop that threat -- financially hurt Blackboard by stopping use of their product. Unlike a lot of directives from central administration at universities, this one would have full support from the staff and faculties.
Blackboard's patent pledge was the minimal step Blackboard could take to prevent its largest users from jumping ship. Even so, the minimalistic nature of the pledge has got its best customers deeply concerned and happy to fund objections to the patent as the best strategy of making this problem go away.
There's also a 'SCO effect' happening. When SCO launched their lawsuit the instinct of university IT Directors was to say "get rid of this SCO thing out of my shop, asap". Ironic, since most large universities hold a AT&T-era UNIX source license. The Blackboard litigation is leading to a similar, but to date smaller, response.
Prior art and obviousness
Posted Apr 26, 2007 20:44 UTC (Thu) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link]
So a rational patent troll will try to strip away as many of the possible allies for its victim as possible, as soon as possible. Especially if the troll is funded by a hedge fund with a "high discount rate" -- a small increase in the chance of winning today's lawsuit is worth much more than a more likely, but later, revenue stream from the patent.