| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Here we go again...Here we go again...Posted Oct 12, 2007 13:17 UTC (Fri) by dion (subscriber, #2764)Parent article: Patent Infringement Lawsuit Filed Against Red Hat and Novell - Just Like Ballmer Predicted (Groklaw)
I wonder will the same pundits that backed SCO also back this troll?
(Log in to post comments)
Here we go again... Posted Oct 12, 2007 13:45 UTC (Fri) by Holmes1869 (guest, #42043) [Link] There's a chance, but since the SCO thing was so easily destroyed (thanks to everyone that contributed to that in one way or another), perhaps they'll be a bit more cautious. The financial press will cover it, but hopefully there won't be any big cover stories (Was Darl on the cover of Forbes or Fortune? Can't remember.).
I support the idea of having patents, and I think the founders of our country had really good intentions. But at some point in time, you/Congress have to say "This makes no sense for software." As a citizen of the greatest producer of wealth in this world, the thing that scares me most about this type of litigation is the loss of productivity. Production in all forms (manufacturing, software, etc.) is a beautiful thing. I'd hate to see it decrease because of ridiculous lawsuits.
Here's to hoping that Red Hat and Novell actually fight this one out. I wish Apple would have.
Cheers
Here we go again... Posted Oct 12, 2007 16:27 UTC (Fri) by boudewijn (subscriber, #14185) [Link] According to Gibbon at least, endless lawsuits was what brought down theWest Roman empire...
Here we go again... Posted Oct 12, 2007 20:59 UTC (Fri) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] Well, if you live in Europe, please clip and send the news of this case to your government and member of the European Parliament. Let them know what they're in for if the software patent lobbyists in Europe get their way.
Here we go again... Posted Oct 13, 2007 15:39 UTC (Sat) by gravious (guest, #7662) [Link] Is that a joke :) ? I'll bite anyway! From Wikipedia (not in any way definitive but you know...):According to Gibbon, the Roman Empire succumbed to barbarian invasions because of a loss of civic virtue among its citizens.[3] They had become lazy and soft, outsourcing their duties to defend their Empire to barbarian mercenaries, who then became so numerous and ingrained that they were able to take over the Empire. Romans, he believed, had become effeminate, unwilling to live a tougher, "manly" military lifestyle. Blackwater *cough* fundamental Evangelicals *cough* *cough* More on topic: I believe the patent and copyright mess is symptomatic of the Friedman-esque rampant corporatism of G7 governance and until the mess very measurably becomes a drag on productivity or GNP growth the suits won't do a thing. I am aware that is all quite abstract and sound-bitey. With reference to the lawsuit, I believe it will come as a surprise to IP Innovation (oh the irony) that litigating a part of our community incurs the wrath of all.
Here we go again... Posted Oct 12, 2007 17:50 UTC (Fri) by mikov (subscriber, #33179) [Link] Here's to hoping that Red Hat and Novell actually fight this one out. I wish Apple would have. I don't think they have a choice. They wouldn't be able to distribute GPL software if they licensed the patent. Unless they bought the patent and put it into the public domain, I guess ?
Here we go again... Posted Oct 12, 2007 22:16 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] They can patent GPL'd software as long as they agree to let anybody else use the patent freely if they use that GPL code.
They don't have to release it to the public domain, per say, they just have to agree to not to sue.
If they like they could add the patent to the OIN and use it as a weapon to help defend Free software from agressive lawsuite-friendly software companies.
Unfortunately against IP trolls like this IP Innovations place it's worthless.
IP Innovations don't actually produce anything so since they don't make any software or distribute any software or provide anything of any kind they can't violate patents. Their sole purpose in life is to threaten companies that actually do stuff.
Here we go again... Posted Oct 12, 2007 15:29 UTC (Fri) by 3vi1 (guest, #39830) [Link] More importantly, will these patent trolls get squashed just like SCO?
I hope so; I hope they lose everything: I hope they get counter-sued and prosecuted for extortion. The world needs a good example to discourage other patent trolls from doing this kind of thing in the future.
If the company suing had truly innovated, and manufactured an actual product based on the patent, I would have more sympathy for them. As is, they appear to be nothing but criminals trying to game the (broken) system, IMHO.
Here we go again... Posted Oct 12, 2007 16:40 UTC (Fri) by kune (guest, #172) [Link] The SCO lawsuit has not been about patents but about copyright and its interpretation.
Here we go again... Posted Oct 12, 2007 23:47 UTC (Fri) by rise (guest, #5045) [Link] SCO has claimed every major variety of intellectual property violation including patents at one point or another, eventually falling back to only copyright and a theory of derivative works that's generally been dismissed by the legal community. They then largely abandoned even that position and tried to shift their IBM case to being solely a breach of contract one. Though I'm sure that SCO would prefer that the public forgot their previous claims, the public record doesn't bear it out.
Here we go again... Posted Oct 13, 2007 6:57 UTC (Sat) by kune (guest, #172) [Link] I agree that the legal theories of SCO have been wrong. But could you please reference any reliablesource, where SCO claimed that IBM infringes SCO's patents.
Here we go again... Posted Oct 13, 2007 10:18 UTC (Sat) by stijn (subscriber, #570) [Link] For what it is worth, I read the phrase "get squashed like SCO" without interpreting it in thecontext of patents and lawsuits. As in "get squashed badly".
Here we go again... Posted Oct 13, 2007 22:30 UTC (Sat) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link] This is factually incorrect.
SCO's claims were about copyrights.
At some stage IBM used some of its patents to counter-sue SCO. So it was IBM who got patents into the game,
Here we go again... Posted Oct 12, 2007 18:33 UTC (Fri) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] While I think the current system has major problems, "nothing but criminals trying to game the (broken) system" is over-the-top. You can't be a "criminal" if you're operating within the system - they clearly aren't committing any "crime". The system, as you say, is broken.
Here we go again... Posted Oct 12, 2007 22:18 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] They are criminals in a real sense. Just not legally.
Reality and the Legal System are very rarely aligned.
Here we go again... Posted Oct 12, 2007 22:20 UTC (Fri) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] You may choose to use words to mean whatever you mean to say, but nobody else will understand you...
Here we go again... Posted Oct 12, 2007 22:21 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] If you can't understand what I just said then you've got more problems then just a very anal view of the english language. :)
Here we go again... Posted Oct 13, 2007 2:49 UTC (Sat) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] Sure, I can understand what you're trying to say - I just have to ignore the words and read the attitude :)
Here we go again... Posted Oct 13, 2007 6:58 UTC (Sat) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] Anyways it _was_ proper use the word criminal.crim·i·nal(krĭm'ə-nəl) adj. 1. Of, involving, or having the nature of crime: criminal abuse. 2. Relating to the administration of penal law. 3. a. Guilty of crime. b. Characteristic of a criminal. 4. Shameful; disgraceful: a criminal waste of talent.
Here we go again... Posted Oct 13, 2007 15:25 UTC (Sat) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] The metaphoric use is an an adjective, which is not the way it was used in the original quote.
Here we go again... Posted Oct 12, 2007 21:21 UTC (Fri) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953) [Link] The best example the community could make is to get every patent held by this company re-examined by the patent office and invalidated. By doing so we should be able to scare any patent troll into avoiding Linux for fear of having all their patents invalidated.
|
|
||||||||||||