| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
The patentsThe patentsPosted Aug 7, 2003 19:13 UTC (Thu) by jbh (subscriber, #494)Parent article: A brief look at IBM's counterclaims These are the patents and what sense I could make of them from a quick glance. They look kind of obvious to me except maybe the first one. 4,814,746 (Lempel-Ziv compression with LRU pruning of dictionary) 4,821,211 (Menu-tree thingy, couldn't see at a glance what makes it special) 4,953,209 (Click-through-license for executable programs where the program isn't executable before the license is accepted) 5,805,785 (Recovery of failed cluster members where the individual members are not themselves failsafe or -aware, using heartbeat and membership protocols)
(Log in to post comments)
The patents Posted Aug 7, 2003 20:01 UTC (Thu) by rise (guest, #5045) [Link] Looks like IBM decided to cherry-pick four from all over their portfolio (SCO has got to be violating hundreds) that are largely unrelated. This means SCO will have to fight four almost completely unrelated patent battles, and the LZ compression claim is probably so widespread in their code that they've got no hope of winning it.
The patents Posted Aug 7, 2003 20:08 UTC (Thu) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link] So why these particular patents? From their vast portfolio, this is the best they could do?I'm rather familiar with OpenServer. Not so familiar with Unixware. I don't really see where lempel-ziv is absolutely crucial to Open Server. It uses the older unix compress/uncompress. The only place I can think of that the "Tree Thingy" would come into play is in the administration menus and while that *can* be done graphically it also has a text based mode which works about as badly^Wwell. Can't think of anything that the click thru stuff would affect. Nonstop clusters would be affected by the 4th patent, and that does not apply to Open Server. i.e. Open Server (a significant revenue stream even if it is 1992 technology) seems largely unaffected.
Patent #31415926: A method by which 2 or more users can use a computer system simultaneously. Not that that would be good news.
The patents Posted Aug 7, 2003 22:30 UTC (Thu) by roelofs (subscriber, #2599) [Link] I don't really see where lempel-ziv is absolutely crucial to Open Server. It uses the older unix compress/uncompress.You have that backwards. compress(1) uses LZW, which is claim 7 of IBM's patent. Since Unisys also patented LZW and IBM apparently was content to let them reap the royalties for more than a decade, the fact that IBM's patent is a continuation of an application with a priority date three weeks earlier than Unisys's application apparently isn't relevant--i.e., it appears that claim 7 is unenforceable, or at least questionable enough that IBM has never chosen to press the issue. But there are a lot of other claims in there, and it's conceivable that SCO really is touching some of those. See the comp.compression FAQ for details. (Note that none of this has ever been tested in court, TTBOMK, so treat the FAQ as expert opinion rather than case law.) Greg
The patents Posted Aug 8, 2003 5:11 UTC (Fri) by mbp (guest, #2737) [Link] > So why these particular patents? From their vast portfolio,> this is the best they could do? IBM probably have good grounds to suspect that SCO violated those patents. But it doesn't really matter. The technique is fairly similar to stoning to death: IBM can start a practically unbounded number of patent lawsuits if they wish, from their portfolio of thousands. Some of them will hit, but even if they all missed, SCO could not afford to defend them. As Ian Lance Taylor said <http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=6956> > IBM is a past master of the IP extortion strategy. For example, see http://www.forbes.com/asap/2002/0624/044_print.html IBM are fighting to preserve a multi-billion dollar Linux and AIX business. The minor expenditure of bringing four, or forty, or four hundred other lawsuits against SCO is well worth while. I am not really happy that the legal system works this way, but in this case it's for the good.
The patents Posted Aug 8, 2003 5:28 UTC (Fri) by jonabbey (subscriber, #2736) [Link] I am not really happy that the legal system works this way, but in this case it's for the good. Yeah, it is. It's a deal. We open source developers give corporations so damn much value that they can't bear to think of losing it, and we get them on our side when it comes to the minority interest whose ax is gored by UNIX on Intel being a zero-cost item. Rah, rah economic self-interest, what?
The patents Posted Aug 8, 2003 5:39 UTC (Fri) by error27 (subscriber, #8346) [Link] So why these particular patents? From their vast portfolio, this is the best they could do?Obviously that's the first thing anyone familiar with software patents will think. Why four and not hundreds? It seems that these four were chosen because they cover SCO's entire product line. I think another reason was these were chosen was to send a message. "Don't sue IBM if you work with computers because IBM owns the patent on everything including the start menu. Literally." To programmers, the four patents probably seem stupid. Frankly the whole idea of software patents seems stupid and I personally believe that software patents are unconstitutional based on the first amendment. However, SCO has to take the patents seriously. Unfortunately for them if they can prove prior art for all four patents, IBM will simply find four more.
The patents Posted Aug 8, 2003 15:15 UTC (Fri) by ksmathers (guest, #2353) [Link] So why these particular patents? From their vast portfolio, this is the best they could do?I think they were chosen for tactical reasons. Each patent touches upon exactly one SCO product, chosen to represent the most valuable and proprietary assets SCO owns. This is a strike to SCO's heart -- a little like targeting a MIRV at Berlin, Paris, Madrid, and London. I don't think it will cow SCO since they were obviously already betting their company on this, but it may make some investors rethink their strategies. Or then again, maybe not.
The patents Posted Aug 12, 2003 9:50 UTC (Tue) by NAR (subscriber, #1313) [Link] Am I right that patent #4,821,211 covers (for example) the Start Menu editing functionality in Windows '95 and later or the KDE Control Center? It's really scary that someone tries to enforce a patent like this, even if it is done for the "right cause"... I've just read an article that Microsoft has to pay about 520 million USD to a Eolas and UCLA, because they use one of Eolas's patents in Internet Explorer. I wonder when will the big companies wake up to the fact, that software patents are bad - even for them - and lobby to abolish this stupid practice.
|
|
||||||||||||