| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Happy, but uneasyHappy, but uneasyPosted Aug 7, 2003 18:57 UTC (Thu) by rjamestaylor (guest, #339)Parent article: A brief look at IBM's counterclaims I'm happy to see IBM respond with vigor, but am a little worried about the introduction of patents into the mix. As Bruce Perens recently warned, the patent portfolios of the friends of Linux pose a latent threat to Linux developers and distributors as well.
(Log in to post comments)
Happy, but uneasy Posted Aug 7, 2003 23:26 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] IBM has explicitly licensed some of its patents for use in GPL code. For example, GCC is now able to use register allocation techniques that were formerly blocked by IBM patents. I would prefer to see IBM take this much further and put it on a formal basis (especially if GNU/Linux distributors could be accused of violating the same patents that they are charging SCO with violating).
Happy, but uneasy Posted Aug 7, 2003 23:57 UTC (Thu) by dkite (guest, #4577) [Link] Unfortunately it's the way it works. And the idea of having an idea, patenting itand living rich the rest of your life is so ingrained in the north american culture, I don't see it changing any time soon. So, IBM and others, collect patents for the most arcane ideas. Over 2000 a year. Sue IBM for any reason and they will put you out of business. That is why IBM doesn't get sued very often. This is why most patent suits are now initiated by companies who don't make anything, essentially lawyer firms. They can't be countersued since they don't do anything real. Derek
Happy, but uneasy Posted Aug 17, 2003 3:57 UTC (Sun) by md_maloney (guest, #9194) [Link] I have a feeling that the patent points are more of a "Oh yeah? I'll teach you to sue IBM!! Take that!!" sort of thing. These points would never had been brought had SCO behaved.--Mike
|
|
||||||||||||