Linux Patent Infringement Lawsuit Filed Against Red Hat/Novell 473
walterbyrd writes "Just months after the last nail in SCO's case, and on the same day as Red Hat's brave words about patent intimidation, a company filed the first patent suit against the Linux operating system. IP Innovation LLC filed the claim against Red Hat and Novell over U.S. Patent No. 5,072,412. PJ points out there is prior art here: 'You might recall the patent was used in litigation against Apple in April 2007, and Beta News reported at the time that it's a 1991 Xerox PARC patent. But Ars Technica provided the detail that it references earlier patents going back to 1984.'"
Follow the money (Score:4, Insightful)
Too Late (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting. (Score:5, Insightful)
So they are Suing RedHat and Novell for using whatever it is that violates the patent. Isn't that a bit like suing Dell because Microsoft's OS infringes on a patent and Dell distributes it?
Whether we like it or not.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Are they building up a war chest? (Score:4, Insightful)
So, perhaps they are going after what they perceive as the 'weaker targets' in order to solidify this?
So, they go after red hat and novell, hoping they will pay...
IBM, etc have far more cash and they are not going after them because they would get pummeled into the ground.
Smells like a pump and dump, or a pump and sell deal with this patent troll, especially with the M$ goon with them.
Re:Interesting. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's good to see that the original inventors and holders of this patent will finally be compensated for their innovation.
Oh wait... the company that holds the patent now (IP Innovation) has nothing to do with the original inventors? Well, I hope any damages they are awarded will encourage them to innovate.
Our patent system is broken.
Re:An Acacia subsidiary - More Info (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Its about time! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly what Mr Ballmer said would happen and is the best weapon Microsoft can use in pushing their "Linux infringes patents" attack. Obviously if they were to bring any cases themselves they would be swamped under a wave of counterclaims from Linux friendly companies such as IBM and Novell so this way they have a proxy which cannot be stopped in such fashion and which on the face of it has nothing to do with Microsoft should there be any negative repercussions from the action. I'd expect to see a lot more of this sort thing from now on.
Even if Red Hat go to court, win and have the patent thrown out ( which we hope they will ) it's still going to cost them a lot of money and quite likely drag on for a good long time sapping money and resources which Red Hat would otherwise be using to expand its business. This obviously is to Microsofts benefit and gives them a hook to hang their "Linux is tainted by illegal patents" hat on.
In the worst case scenario Red Hat go to court, lose and the patent is validated costing Red Hat lots of money for damages and an on-going outlay if they're allowed to licence the patent. Even worse than that since Red Hat no doubt use a very similar version of whatever component of the Linux system that everyone else does it's going to be a lot easier for this company to get money from them too. Even worse than that is the situation for freely distributed Linux, obviously there's no one to pay licence fees to use the patent so it's possible that restrictions would somehow be placed on such free distributions ( not sure of the legal situation with one ). Clearly this would be a huge win for Microsoft.
If this patent is thrown out then you can bet there will be hundreds more coming out of the woodwork each one carrying the risks outlined above if they're not thrown out and each one costing Linux companies money to defend against.
As PJ says the real solution is for the US to harmonise it's patent rules with the rest of the world and cut support for all software patents because if what we're seeing now continues the US is going to lose out to other countries where such patent laws are not in effect and Linux can flourish.
Re:Gentlemen, start your editors... (Score:3, Insightful)
maybe you can write a letter to the editor...
Re:Interesting. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Interesting. (Score:2, Insightful)
But still, I agree that companies like IP Innovation shouldn't be able to extort money from companies after waiting so many years for a technology to become ubiquitous.
Re:Whether we like it or not.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Mod Redundant, linked in summary (Score:1, Insightful)
Or maybe it just means that neither you nor the 4 people who modded you up actually clicked on any links in the summary.
Re:Follow the money (Score:5, Insightful)
Since these Acacia people don't actually do anything other than patent troll defensive patent portfolios are useless against it.
Re:"...filled against Linux" (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong. They're not attacking GNU/Linux. They are attacking companies that make money selling Linux. They're not after the people who won't pay for an operating system, they're after the people who will. This suit is against Redhat and Novell, who provide a system with a GUI, that GUI infringes on the patent.
My question is, what product does this company sell that they can claim to have lost revenue on? Or is IP law so crap that there is no need to even have made an attempt at creating a product to be able to sue someone for damages? I mean, I can understand royalties, but damages?
Also, it will be interesting to see when they informed Redhat and Novell of the infringement since they are suing for willful infringement.
Re:"...filled against Linux" (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know what happened in this case. It could be that the patent holder asked Red Hat to license the patent for a fee and Red Hat refused. Given Red Hat's recent statements that suggest that they feel no obligation to honor patents (at least patents held by companies they don't like), it wouldn't surpsise me.
Re:Extra! Extra! Read all about it (Score:1, Insightful)
IP Innovation LLC (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the great thing about companies with names like "IP Innovation LLC"....they don't have any products so they can't possibly be infringing on anybody else's junk patents.
Worst case scenario IS the best case scenario? (Score:3, Insightful)
Read that again. Every copy that they sell.
Could this potentially be a really good precedent? It could end up setting the stage for an industry in which open source operating systems can freely include patented technologies, because the only parties who need be concerned about patents are the ones who are selling it. This could end up making the whole patent problem much less of a concern. Go ahead and put that MP3 decoder in, for example. Fedora distributes it for free. CentOS distributes it for free. Red Hat Enterprise charges for it, and pays the royalty to Frauhofer.
Yes, software patents are bullshit, including this one. But imagine how cool it would be if this precedent were established, and free operating systems like Ubuntu could bundle all those codecs by default, because the royalty requirement only applies when money changes hands for an operating system license.
Re:Interesting. (Score:5, Insightful)
I've come to realize that this is a misconception. The patent system isn't broken, corrupt, or overwhelmed. Unfortunately, it is working exactly as it was designed.
From an early age we are taught idealist interpretations of patent law and how it is a wonderful tool to spur innovation, research, business, etc. and provide a level playing field for the little entrepreneur. However, when confronted with the reality of what patent law is, a forced impedement on human nature to invent and create which turns out to be contradictory to the idealistic intent, it is assumed it must be because it is broken.
http://www.movingtofreedom.org/2006/08/31/ben-franklin-on-patents/ [movingtofreedom.org]
An ironmonger in London however, assuming a good deal of my pamphlet, and working it up into his own, and making some small changes in the machine, which rather hurt its operation, got a patent for it there, and made, as I was told, a little fortune by it. And this is not the only instance of patents taken out for my inventions by others, tho' not always with the same success, which I never contested, as having no desire of profiting by patents myself, and hating disputes. The use of these fireplaces in very many houses, both of this and the neighbouring colonies, has been, and is, a great saving of wood to the inhabitants.
- Benjamin Franklin, Autobiography
If Ben was around today I'm sure he would approve of the open source movement and he would likely be called a smelly long haired communist and have chairs thrown at him.
Re:"...filled against Linux" (Score:2, Insightful)
...Or Timely (Score:3, Insightful)
Patent markets DO reward original inventors (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree with your point that the patent system has gotten a bit absurd.
However, it is not true to say that any subsequent damages don't go, at least indirectly, to "the original inventors and holders of this patent." Quite the contrary - it is these very (potential) enforced royalties that caused the first purchaser to buy the patent rights from the original inventor.
What supposedly encourages the innovation is the ability to monetize the patent rights. An inventor can do this by (a) manufacturing the product themselves for the next 20+ years, or (b) licensing the patent to someone else for the next 20+ years and collecting royalties, or (c) selling the patent to someone else.
The poster seems to think that only (a) is acceptable. But what the financial difference to the inventor between (a), (b) and (c)? And wouldn't (c) also stimulate R&D? If you know there's a market for your research (in the form of a patent), wouldn't that encourage you to develop patentable ideas? In economic theory, there would be an increase in R&D at the margins, as the value of patent rights in the market increased.
Now, I agree that 'patentable ideas' has gotten out of control. But the theory behind a market for selling & buying patent rights isn't, in and of itself, a corrupt idea. It's just that the current implementation of that idea isn't optimum.
Re:Not to worry, much (Score:3, Insightful)
It's called a smoke screen. Anything to give Linux/Redhat bad publicity.
Re:"...filled against Linux" (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway, this particular patent will be struck down on examination -- it fails both the novelty and obviety tests (to say nothing of being invalid in most countries in the world). Red Hat should submit a motion that the case is entirely without merit and IP Innovation LLC are being vexatious litigants.
Re:"...filled against Linux" (Score:3, Insightful)
It's sad it will be the US IT industry that gets the most pain, but, in other countries, this "sacrifice" will allow life to go on and a case will be provided to show such stupid laws need to be completely avoided.
the US will, eventually, recover, _after_ a patent law reform. I hope this lawsuit helps with that.
Re:"...filled against Linux" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Start of a patent war? (Score:1, Insightful)
Shorten the patent length (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:GNU/Linux distro makers both (Score:3, Insightful)
Excuse me? Where can I buy a RedHat or Novell branded computer? They sell software[*].
Ironically, in the recent Supreme Court AT&T vs Microsoft decision, the Supremes found in favor of Microsoft that software per se is not a component of an infringing device, but infringement only happens when the software is run on a computer. (There are detail differences in the cases, of course, part of it including what was being shipped overseas.)
[*] Technically, they don't even sell software, but software support.
Re:Patent markets DO reward original inventors (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the problem is that patents are being (c) sold to people who have no intention of (a) manufacturing the product themselves, nor (b) of licensing the patent to someone else. In which case, the patent doesn't promote innovation in any way. Sure, the original inventor is monetarily compensated, but if the invention isn't being used at all, what's the point? If the sale of the patent is to someone who is actually going to do something with it, instead of just sitting on it for a decade and then suing people, I wouldn't have a problem with that.
Re:"...filled against Linux" (Score:3, Insightful)
There's also another problem - Microsoft has never been the largest software company in the world - that's IBM.
And then if you want to go further, with RIAA-style arithmetic (those CD burners count dobule because they're faster!), 1 IBM programmer has got to be worth at least a dozen MCSEs.
What on earth are you on about? (Score:2, Insightful)