I have not so far found anywhere saying which parts of the Linux kernel are supposed to be infringing on this patent, but I would not be surprised at all if it were an independent reinvention. It was probably one of these situations were, given a set of constraints, people will arrive at the same or a similar solution.
Posted Apr 22, 2011 2:33 UTC (Fri) by orcmid (guest, #74478)
[Link]
I also presume that there was no willful infringement. Unfortunately, unlike for copyright, independent reinvention is no defense.
According to the NetworkWorld article in Florian's list of links, the suit applies to kernel 2.4.22.x and beyond. I don't know if that is the first occurrence or just the oldest one included in the suit. Release notes might help narrow in on where this might have been introduced.
I also see that some reports say the suit was initiated in 2009. I need to find where I saw that it began in 2006. I stand corrected. All of the sources say June 2009.
Date of filing of lawsuit; Linux versions
Posted Apr 22, 2011 5:24 UTC (Fri) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048)
[Link]
TheRegister says 2006. The court filings in case 6:09-cv-00269, ED of TX, say 2009 (hence the "09" in that case number). So does Justia.com.
The complaint (I'm copying this now from the 2nd amended complaint filed about a year ago) lists the following versions of Linux: