Independent reinvention? [LWN.net]

Independent reinvention?

Posted Apr 22, 2011 2:33 UTC (Fri) by orcmid (guest, #74478)
In reply to: Independent reinvention? by cesarb
Parent article: Google Linux servers hit with $5m patent infringement verdict (The Register)

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.

to post comments

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:

"2.4.22.x, 2.4.23.x, 2.4.24.x, 2.4.25.x, 2.4.26.x, 2.4.27.x, 2.4.28.x, 2.4.29.x, 2.4.30.x, 2.4.31.x, 2.4.32.x, 2.4.33.x, 2.4.37.x, 2.6.0.x, 2.6.1.x, 2.6.2.x, 2.6.3.x, 2.6.4.x, 2.6.5.x, 2.6.6.x, 2.6.7.x, 2.6.8.x, 2.6.9.x, 2.6.10.x, 2.6.11.x, 2.6.12.x, 2.6.13.x, 2.6.14.x, 2.6.15.x, 2.6.16.x, 2.6.17.x, 2.6.18.x, 2.6.19.x, 2.6.20.x, 2.6.21.x, 2.6.22.x, 2.6.23.x, 2.6.24.x, 2.6.25.x, 2.6.26.x, 2.6.27.x, 2.6.28.x, 2.6.29.x, 2.6.30.x, 2.6.31.x, or versions beyond 2.6.31.x."