Here we go again... [LWN.net]

Here we go again...

Posted Oct 12, 2007 15:29 UTC (Fri) by 3vi1 (guest, #39830)
In reply to: Here we go again... by dion
Parent article: Patent Infringement Lawsuit Filed Against Red Hat and Novell - Just Like Ballmer Predicted (Groklaw)

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.

(Log in to post comments)

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 reliable
source, 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 the
context 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.