there not similar at all

Posted Mar 28, 2013 18:03 UTC (Thu) by lxoliva (guest, #40702)
In reply to: there not similar at all by coriordan
Parent article: Google: Taking a stand on open source and patents

same value as in, even if Red Hat were to transfer on of its patents to a third party, and that party decided to sue others about patent infringement, courts (in any jurisdictions where Red Hat holds or might hold patents) would find that whoever meets the terms of the promise is effectively a licensee? that's my main concern about contributing to Red Hat's defensive patent pool.

they're not similar at all

Posted Mar 29, 2013 15:05 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] (1 responses)

yes. my reading of it is that even when the patent is transferred to another entity (in that case it was because the company went bankrupt and their assets were transferred to a trust), the promise still exists, the same as a licence would.

But you're right that it's important to be sure about the details. I'll do a write up of the case tomorrow morning and put it here:

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/In_re_Spansion_by_US_Third_Circu...

they're not similar at all

Posted Mar 30, 2013 5:39 UTC (Sat) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]

Now I'm not so sure. I read the court ruling a few times but I don't see where it discusses a patent being transferred to another entity.

Dennis Crouch's Patently-O is quite authoritative, and his summary is "Apple retains its license regardless of who buys the patent rights" - but it's not clear to me where he gets that from.

Maybe his summary is obvious when you know US bankruptcy law. But I don't.

Or maybe it's clear if you read the court cases referenced by that recent court case. I'll do that if I find time.