| |||||||||||||
Liability of Users for Patent InfringementLiability of Users for Patent InfringementPosted Apr 22, 2011 2:44 UTC (Fri) by orcmid (guest, #74478)In reply to: Google Linux servers hit with $5m patent infringement verdict (The Register) by mikov Parent article: Google Linux servers hit with $5m patent infringement verdict (The Register)
Yes, it means that. If this is in an essential part of the kernel, every use of Linux distribution with such a kernel would constitute an infringing operation.
In the commercial world, providers of hardware-software systems tended to hold their customers harmless from such suits and would defend them.
Google was sued as an user of Linux. (There's a kind of karma here with regard to Google not providing protection to hardware providers that embed Android, but that is an entirely-separate matter, seems to me.)
(Log in to post comments)
Liability of Users for Patent Infringement Posted Apr 22, 2011 8:19 UTC (Fri) by renox (subscriber, #23785) [Link]
Your point about Google's karma is not reasonable: software patents should be banned (as they are more or less in Europe, even though it's not so clear here also), so the US are in an 'insane' situation.
It is not reasonable to expect that Google alone will fix this 'insane' situation..
Liability of Users for Patent Infringement Posted Apr 22, 2011 17:20 UTC (Fri) by orcmid (guest, #74478) [Link]
You misunderstood my observation about karma. Google has users of software that it distributes under GPL (and based on Linux) for which those users are being sued for patent infringement (not Google). I am referring to the Android business, of course.
In this case, Google has lost a suit (obviously yet to be appealed) because it has used software (Linux) in its own business for which there is no source of indemnification.
To argue that there should not be software patents (and I am very much aligned with that notion) has nothing to do with it. If that is the defense of Google's actions, I would say we are also seeing the consequences of hubris.
However the software-patent story unfolds, it will be over an extensive length of time and very painful for those who enjoy pissing into the wind.
Liability of Users for Patent Infringement Posted Apr 23, 2011 23:51 UTC (Sat) by ThinkRob (subscriber, #64513) [Link]
> Yes, it means that. If this is in an essential part of the kernel, every use of Linux distribution with such a kernel would constitute an infringing operation.
> In the commercial world, providers of hardware-software systems tended to hold their customers harmless from such suits and would defend them.
Oh boy. This could be fun.
I can't wait until the patent trolls go after IBM, probably reasoning that since almost all (or maybe all?) of IBM's big iron can/does run Linux they're a good target. The mental image that such a lawsuit evokes is that of a foolish man poking a large sleeping grizzly bear. Eventually, the bear will snort a few times, bat its ears, open one eye, look sleepily around, and then simply maul the annoying guy into a small patch of red pulp.
If there's one company that I would expect to defend Linux pretty damn well, it's IBM; given their patent history I bet they could find numerous counts of infringement on their portfolio by any business, even if that business is just a shell company/patent troll. Even if they didn't have patents with which to fight back... well... what are the odds that a patent troll can outlast IBM's legal army?
Of course IANG (I Am Not Groklaw)...
Liability of Users for Patent Infringement Posted Apr 24, 2011 19:02 UTC (Sun) by wahern (subscriber, #37304) [Link] Well, they didn't just sue Google. Here's a list of defendants from their Amended Complaint 2011-01-24. Don't infer anything about these defendants--other than Google--regarding the trial verdict.
Red Hat preemptively sued in 2009 for a declaratory judgment. Pacer charges per document so I can't figure out how out all of this unfolded (without paying), but here's the defendant list in Facebook's 2010-09-03 Amended Answer to Bedrock's crossclaim. I would guess these are all Red Hat customers impleaded by Bedrock.
Liability of Users for Patent Infringement Posted Apr 24, 2011 21:58 UTC (Sun) by orcmid (guest, #74478) [Link]
The link to justia.com provided by FOSSPatents earlier on this thread provides a lot of the soap opera: http://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/6:2009cv002...
I got tired looking through it, and I don't think one can find actual exhibits or expert testimony.
What is interesting is that some of these companies have extensive web farms for their own operations. We know that Google's uses Linux. I presume these other users do also.
It is interesting that hosting services are included. I assume because they are engaging in commerce by leasing the use of LAMP-based hosted sites, etc. So my hosting service could easily make it onto this list, not to mention sites where I am an user (Facebook, amazon.com, etc.). Ick.
I suppose free cloud services (E.g., my Amazon Cloud Drive) may not be very free for long. And we all wait patiently to learn there has been a workaround that removes the infringing code from the Linux kernel.
|
|||||||||||||