Slashdot Mirror

What patents did Novell have that are worth US$450 and a first-paragraph mention in a buy-out press release?

Novell was a major contributor of patents to the OIN patent pool.

(Mono probably isn't the main worry - it was Microsoft's patents that were posing a threat there, not Novell's.

From the first paragraph of the press release:

Novell also announced it has entered into a definitive agreement for the concurrent sale of certain intellectual property assets to CPTN Holdings LLC, a consortium of technology companies organized by Microsoft Corporation

With Novell owning Mono, the free software community will have to watch this.

• .NET, C-sharp, and Mono
• Novell
• Microsoft
• Equitable defences: estoppel and laches
• Patent promises
• CPTN Holdings LLC

What patents did Novell have in that area?

It's unlikely that MS will have acquired the copyrights for Mono. It serves them better to have a "third-party" implementation which they can show to the competition authorities and standards groups.

From the first paragraph of the press release:

Novell also announced it has entered into a definitive agreement for the concurrent sale of certain intellectual property assets to CPTN Holdings LLC, a consortium of technology companies organized by Microsoft Corporation

With Novell owning Mono, the free software community will have to watch this.

• .NET, C-sharp, and Mono
• Novell
• Microsoft
• Equitable defences: estoppel and laches
• Patent promises
• CPTN Holdings LLC

What patents did Novell have in that area?

It's unlikely that MS will have acquired the copyrights for Mono. It serves them better to have a "third-party" implementation which they can show to the competition authorities and standards groups.

From the first paragraph of the press release:

Novell also announced it has entered into a definitive agreement for the concurrent sale of certain intellectual property assets to CPTN Holdings LLC, a consortium of technology companies organized by Microsoft Corporation

With Novell owning Mono, the free software community will have to watch this.

• .NET, C-sharp, and Mono
• Novell
• Microsoft
• Equitable defences: estoppel and laches
• Patent promises
• CPTN Holdings LLC

What patents did Novell have in that area?

It's unlikely that MS will have acquired the copyrights for Mono. It serves them better to have a "third-party" implementation which they can show to the competition authorities and standards groups.

From the first paragraph of the press release:

Novell also announced it has entered into a definitive agreement for the concurrent sale of certain intellectual property assets to CPTN Holdings LLC, a consortium of technology companies organized by Microsoft Corporation

With Novell owning Mono, the free software community will have to watch this.

• .NET, C-sharp, and Mono
• Novell
• Microsoft
• Equitable defences: estoppel and laches
• Patent promises
• CPTN Holdings LLC

What patents did Novell have in that area?

It's unlikely that MS will have acquired the copyrights for Mono. It serves them better to have a "third-party" implementation which they can show to the competition authorities and standards groups.

From the first paragraph of the press release:

Novell also announced it has entered into a definitive agreement for the concurrent sale of certain intellectual property assets to CPTN Holdings LLC, a consortium of technology companies organized by Microsoft Corporation

With Novell owning Mono, the free software community will have to watch this.

• .NET, C-sharp, and Mono
• Novell
• Microsoft
• Equitable defences: estoppel and laches
• Patent promises
• CPTN Holdings LLC

What patents did Novell have in that area?

It's unlikely that MS will have acquired the copyrights for Mono. It serves them better to have a "third-party" implementation which they can show to the competition authorities and standards groups.

From the first paragraph of the press release:

Novell also announced it has entered into a definitive agreement for the concurrent sale of certain intellectual property assets to CPTN Holdings LLC, a consortium of technology companies organized by Microsoft Corporation

With Novell owning Mono, the free software community will have to watch this.

• .NET, C-sharp, and Mono
• Novell
• Microsoft
• Equitable defences: estoppel and laches
• Patent promises
• CPTN Holdings LLC

What patents did Novell have in that area?

It's unlikely that MS will have acquired the copyrights for Mono. It serves them better to have a "third-party" implementation which they can show to the competition authorities and standards groups.

Software patents are one of the biggest threats. Writing a website is writing software, and having a website today is essential for many parts of our democracy. Campaigns on issues or for candidates need websites. Further, writing software is an important freedom in itself, like the freedom to write a book. Most people will never do either, but we all benefit from the small percentage of people who do.

Writing functional software often means reading and writing common data formats, so a patent on a format turns into a veto on others being able to write functional software in that domain.

(In reality, political candidates will never get threatened by patent owners - the patent owners don't want the politicians to feel first-hand how much of a problem it is.)

Berners-Lee makes a quick reference to it in TFA:

Openness also means you can build your own Web site or company without anyone's approval. When the Web began, I did not have to obtain permission or pay royalties to use the Internet's own open standards, such as the well-known transmission control protocol (TCP) and Internet protocol (IP). Similarly, the Web Consortium's royalty-free patent policy says that the companies, universities and individuals who contribute to the development of a standard must agree they will not charge royalties to anyone who may use the standard.

• Tim Berners Lee on software patents
• Webpage and e-commerce patents
• Freedom of expression

Software patents are one of the biggest threats. Writing a website is writing software, and having a website today is essential for many parts of our democracy. Campaigns on issues or for candidates need websites. Further, writing software is an important freedom in itself, like the freedom to write a book. Most people will never do either, but we all benefit from the small percentage of people who do.

Writing functional software often means reading and writing common data formats, so a patent on a format turns into a veto on others being able to write functional software in that domain.

(In reality, political candidates will never get threatened by patent owners - the patent owners don't want the politicians to feel first-hand how much of a problem it is.)

Berners-Lee makes a quick reference to it in TFA:

Openness also means you can build your own Web site or company without anyone's approval. When the Web began, I did not have to obtain permission or pay royalties to use the Internet's own open standards, such as the well-known transmission control protocol (TCP) and Internet protocol (IP). Similarly, the Web Consortium's royalty-free patent policy says that the companies, universities and individuals who contribute to the development of a standard must agree they will not charge royalties to anyone who may use the standard.

• Tim Berners Lee on software patents
• Webpage and e-commerce patents
• Freedom of expression

Software patents are one of the biggest threats. Writing a website is writing software, and having a website today is essential for many parts of our democracy. Campaigns on issues or for candidates need websites. Further, writing software is an important freedom in itself, like the freedom to write a book. Most people will never do either, but we all benefit from the small percentage of people who do.

Writing functional software often means reading and writing common data formats, so a patent on a format turns into a veto on others being able to write functional software in that domain.

(In reality, political candidates will never get threatened by patent owners - the patent owners don't want the politicians to feel first-hand how much of a problem it is.)

Berners-Lee makes a quick reference to it in TFA:

Openness also means you can build your own Web site or company without anyone's approval. When the Web began, I did not have to obtain permission or pay royalties to use the Internet's own open standards, such as the well-known transmission control protocol (TCP) and Internet protocol (IP). Similarly, the Web Consortium's royalty-free patent policy says that the companies, universities and individuals who contribute to the development of a standard must agree they will not charge royalties to anyone who may use the standard.

• Tim Berners Lee on software patents
• Webpage and e-commerce patents
• Freedom of expression

Thanks! for the link and the quote. I've added them to the wiki here:

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

The graphene story is an excellent case study for innovation policy

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Inequality_between_small_and_large_patent_holders#Small_patent_holders_have_a_weak_negotiating_position

Inventing graphene gets you nothing, but inventing applications for it will make you rich.

Really a prizes system seems to be worth trying as a replacement for the patent system in some fields. How many millions does the patent system cost our governments? What if there were multi-million dollar prizes up for grabs, and freedom to operate for everyone, instead of monopolies?

(Yeh, the lawyers won't help us lobby for this change...)

Here's some background on this and other phone cases:

* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._Motorola_(2010,_USA)
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Phone_patent_litigation
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_non-aggression_pacts

Besides phones being a growth market, this problem is aggravated by the fact that a bunch of big hardware companies are suddenly in the same market as a bunch of big software companies. Unlike their usual competitors, these buy guys don't yet have patent non-aggression pacts, so they just go to war instead.

Here's some background on this and other phone cases:

* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._Motorola_(2010,_USA)
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Phone_patent_litigation
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_non-aggression_pacts

Besides phones being a growth market, this problem is aggravated by the fact that a bunch of big hardware companies are suddenly in the same market as a bunch of big software companies. Unlike their usual competitors, these buy guys don't yet have patent non-aggression pacts, so they just go to war instead.

Here's some background on this and other phone cases:

* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._Motorola_(2010,_USA)
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Phone_patent_litigation
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_non-aggression_pacts

Besides phones being a growth market, this problem is aggravated by the fact that a bunch of big hardware companies are suddenly in the same market as a bunch of big software companies. Unlike their usual competitors, these buy guys don't yet have patent non-aggression pacts, so they just go to war instead.

My initial reading agrees with you.

I've made a section to document this. Either we should explain that the journalists are all wrong, or maybe we'll find that the court documents somehow avoid mentioning the object of the dispute (I know, that sounds unlikely).

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Oracle_v._SAP_(2010,_USA)#Help:_Is_it_about_patents.3F

Meanwhile, after a twelve year fight in the courts, Amazon is about to get its 1-click shopping patent granted in Canada:

http://news.swpat.org/2010/11/canada-1-click-patentable/

Background:
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Amazon_v._Commissioner_for_Patents_(2010,_Canada)
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Amazon's_one-click_shopping_patent
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Amazon

Meanwhile, after a twelve year fight in the courts, Amazon is about to get its 1-click shopping patent granted in Canada:

http://news.swpat.org/2010/11/canada-1-click-patentable/

Background:
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Amazon_v._Commissioner_for_Patents_(2010,_Canada)
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Amazon's_one-click_shopping_patent
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Amazon

Meanwhile, after a twelve year fight in the courts, Amazon is about to get its 1-click shopping patent granted in Canada:

http://news.swpat.org/2010/11/canada-1-click-patentable/

Background:
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Amazon_v._Commissioner_for_Patents_(2010,_Canada)
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Amazon's_one-click_shopping_patent
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Amazon

Meanwhile, after a twelve year fight in the courts, Amazon is about to get its 1-click shopping patent granted in Canada:

http://news.swpat.org/2010/11/canada-1-click-patentable/

Background:
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Amazon_v._Commissioner_for_Patents_(2010,_Canada)
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Amazon's_one-click_shopping_patent
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Amazon

Rustling up a quick summary here for anyone looking for background:

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Oracle_v._SAP_(2010,_USA)

Yet, if you fork OpenJDK(witch is GPL) you get all of the patents in there per GPL. GPL v2 and patents
Passing the TCK is required for you to use Java trademark.

I'm a layperson, and you're a layperson, and we disagree. Fine.

But here are two articles by patent lawyers, and they support TFA's assertions:

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Raising_examination_standards_won't_fix_much#Current_trend:_standards_getting_lower.3F

Much better than the other permissive licences:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_clauses_in_software_licences#Apache_License

so for a cool billion Ellison got himself a bunch of generic patents (such as "Flexible order structure", "Method and system for constructing personalized result sets" and "System and method for interfacing and separating formatted content and program code", you get the picture) and he also now is a proud owner of some sort of 'in house' web based IM system and some sort of a rules engine on top of a knowledge base.

Obviously I am not mentioning the 1000 or so clients that ATG supposedly has.

I suppose this is a somewhat meaningful purchase, though obviously the company in question has over 942M market capitalization (per Yahoo) and this year revenue is just over $50 million, which doesn't say much about their profit. Ellison can do whatever he wants with his money but I think he is overpaying for this company by at least a factor of 2.

Maybe someone can help with that css problem.

Thing is, I want text-links in the articles to have a grey background when someone hovers the mouse over them, but the only way I know to do this is by having all link-things turn fully grey backgrounded whenever the mouse is over them.

The image in the top left is part of a big link area, so the whole link area turns grey.

It irritates me too. Anyone know the html/css magic needed?

The current css is at:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Common.css
(Normal users can't edit that page but you could leave a note on its Talk: page)

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Oracle#ATG_patents_acquired

It's also an example for how we can do our software patents lobbying.

The US govt pleading for a narrowing of patentable subject matter is rare (AFAIK), so this is a juicy example of how they justify a narrowing and how, in legal terms, they argue for a narrow interpretation.

If anyone has info about these angles, please add it to what I've got here:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Excluding_gene_patents_in_the_USA

I was just reading the patent. It's a strange one. I can't see any difference between claims #2 and #3.

It seems to be a software patent. The hardware elements claimed are all non-innovative.

I've started a wiki page for it here. Not sure if this will turn into an article about the court case or about the patent, but this case seems to provide interesting examples of a few topics.

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/US7035281

(I'm working on it now, but have to shutdown very soon. Should get to flesh it out tomorrow.)

> Surely online casinos have been doing this since forever?

Maybe, but this patent covers *a specific* implementation of virtual currency. Invalidating or avoiding it will require reading the claims, not the name or the abstract.

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

Furthermore, online casinos typically do the opposite - you exchange money for virtual chips, gamble, and then you usually want to get your winnings back in real currency at some point. These claims specify that the virtual chips are not redeemable. Virtual casinos are prior art for an obviousness analysis, but do not anticipate these claims.

> Surely online casinos have been doing this since forever?

Maybe, but this patent covers *a specific* implementation of virtual currency. Invalidating or avoiding it will require reading the claims, not the name or the abstract.

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

It's like the IPv6 problem.

Many people can see that this is something that will be a key element of future society. It's just a matter of patenting as many related ideas now and waiting for them to come into use.

* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Webpage_and_web_service_patents
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Invalid_patents_remain_unchallenged
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_trolls
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Divine_e-commerce_patents

It's like the IPv6 problem.

Many people can see that this is something that will be a key element of future society. It's just a matter of patenting as many related ideas now and waiting for them to come into use.

* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Webpage_and_web_service_patents
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Invalid_patents_remain_unchallenged
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_trolls
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Divine_e-commerce_patents

It's like the IPv6 problem.

Many people can see that this is something that will be a key element of future society. It's just a matter of patenting as many related ideas now and waiting for them to come into use.

* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Webpage_and_web_service_patents
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Invalid_patents_remain_unchallenged
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_trolls
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Divine_e-commerce_patents

It's like the IPv6 problem.

Many people can see that this is something that will be a key element of future society. It's just a matter of patenting as many related ideas now and waiting for them to come into use.

* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Webpage_and_web_service_patents
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Invalid_patents_remain_unchallenged
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_trolls
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Divine_e-commerce_patents

Great. Thanks for the info. I've added it to the wiki:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Equitable_defences:_estoppel_and_laches#Laches

Please read how to do it right:

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

Actually, since this problem is sure to boom in the coming months, I've started a wiki page for it:

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/IPv6

In a speech around 2004, I remember Alan Cox said that the reason IPv6 wasn't advancing was that big software players were afraid to adopt it before it turns 20 in case there are submarine patents / patent ambush.

Anyone got links to confirm / disprove this theory?

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

Oracle's patent moves probably didn't help, but Apple's normally not a company to be afraid of software patents - they have a big enough portfolio of their own.

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

(Phone patents are another beast - they're held by companies that Apple often doesn't have as long a history of dealing with and they don't yet have patent non-aggression pacts)

MacOS X will probably be using J2SE, which the Sun/Oracle Java patent licenses will allow. Since Apple ported the Sun JVM, it would be a compliant suite. Sun/Oracle never gave free patent licenses for J2ME, however (as J2ME is very lucrative, being used in most cellphones around the world ("dumbphones" and featurephones)).

Android, however, unless it implements J2SE wouldn't be covered.

As for mobile patents, it would appear most don't have non-aggression pacts, going by all the mobile lawsuits all over the place. At least on the ones that aren't covered by RAND.

It doesn't come as a huge surprise though - I think the Java as an API in MacOS X has been quietly deprecated since Panther or so - you could still use it, but Apple pretty much depreceated it quietly for many years. It does affect a few apps I use though - Vuze and JBidWatcher, but those are on an older Mac that can't run Snow Leopard anyhow.

Oracle's patent moves probably didn't help, but Apple's normally not a company to be afraid of software patents - they have a big enough portfolio of their own.

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

(Phone patents are another beast - they're held by companies that Apple often doesn't have as long a history of dealing with and they don't yet have patent non-aggression pacts)

Problem is, reviewing wrongly-granted patents takes years - 5 years for the 1-click patent and it wasn't even invalidated, just narrowed.

In other fields, this isn't a huge problem. In pharma, or the automobile industry, a threat is met with a legal team and a counter-suit. For software, when it's small businesses or even individuals that get threatened, they don't have the time and resources to play the game. It's the old joke about the manager phoning his lawyer "Some company wants me to pay them $5K for a liccnece, do I have to pay that?" "Give me $40k and I'll review it". (That number is the cost estimate that Dan Ravicher gave for giving a client a certificate of non-infringement.)

• Webpage and e-commerce patents
• Patent trolls
• Silly patents
• Invalid patents remain unchallenged
• Dan Ravicher on software patents
• Costs

Problem is, reviewing wrongly-granted patents takes years - 5 years for the 1-click patent and it wasn't even invalidated, just narrowed.

In other fields, this isn't a huge problem. In pharma, or the automobile industry, a threat is met with a legal team and a counter-suit. For software, when it's small businesses or even individuals that get threatened, they don't have the time and resources to play the game. It's the old joke about the manager phoning his lawyer "Some company wants me to pay them $5K for a liccnece, do I have to pay that?" "Give me $40k and I'll review it". (That number is the cost estimate that Dan Ravicher gave for giving a client a certificate of non-infringement.)

• Webpage and e-commerce patents
• Patent trolls
• Silly patents
• Invalid patents remain unchallenged
• Dan Ravicher on software patents
• Costs

Problem is, reviewing wrongly-granted patents takes years - 5 years for the 1-click patent and it wasn't even invalidated, just narrowed.

In other fields, this isn't a huge problem. In pharma, or the automobile industry, a threat is met with a legal team and a counter-suit. For software, when it's small businesses or even individuals that get threatened, they don't have the time and resources to play the game. It's the old joke about the manager phoning his lawyer "Some company wants me to pay them $5K for a liccnece, do I have to pay that?" "Give me $40k and I'll review it". (That number is the cost estimate that Dan Ravicher gave for giving a client a certificate of non-infringement.)

• Webpage and e-commerce patents
• Patent trolls
• Silly patents
• Invalid patents remain unchallenged
• Dan Ravicher on software patents
• Costs

Problem is, reviewing wrongly-granted patents takes years - 5 years for the 1-click patent and it wasn't even invalidated, just narrowed.

In other fields, this isn't a huge problem. In pharma, or the automobile industry, a threat is met with a legal team and a counter-suit. For software, when it's small businesses or even individuals that get threatened, they don't have the time and resources to play the game. It's the old joke about the manager phoning his lawyer "Some company wants me to pay them $5K for a liccnece, do I have to pay that?" "Give me $40k and I'll review it". (That number is the cost estimate that Dan Ravicher gave for giving a client a certificate of non-infringement.)

• Webpage and e-commerce patents
• Patent trolls
• Silly patents
• Invalid patents remain unchallenged
• Dan Ravicher on software patents
• Costs

Problem is, reviewing wrongly-granted patents takes years - 5 years for the 1-click patent and it wasn't even invalidated, just narrowed.

In other fields, this isn't a huge problem. In pharma, or the automobile industry, a threat is met with a legal team and a counter-suit. For software, when it's small businesses or even individuals that get threatened, they don't have the time and resources to play the game. It's the old joke about the manager phoning his lawyer "Some company wants me to pay them $5K for a liccnece, do I have to pay that?" "Give me $40k and I'll review it". (That number is the cost estimate that Dan Ravicher gave for giving a client a certificate of non-infringement.)

• Webpage and e-commerce patents
• Patent trolls
• Silly patents
• Invalid patents remain unchallenged
• Dan Ravicher on software patents
• Costs

Problem is, reviewing wrongly-granted patents takes years - 5 years for the 1-click patent and it wasn't even invalidated, just narrowed.

In other fields, this isn't a huge problem. In pharma, or the automobile industry, a threat is met with a legal team and a counter-suit. For software, when it's small businesses or even individuals that get threatened, they don't have the time and resources to play the game. It's the old joke about the manager phoning his lawyer "Some company wants me to pay them $5K for a liccnece, do I have to pay that?" "Give me $40k and I'll review it". (That number is the cost estimate that Dan Ravicher gave for giving a client a certificate of non-infringement.)

• Webpage and e-commerce patents
• Patent trolls
• Silly patents
• Invalid patents remain unchallenged
• Dan Ravicher on software patents
• Costs

This patent mightn't change much, but it's the weight of the hundreds of patents that's spoiling the AV field.

Microsoft is a member of MPEG-LA, but they pay more royalties than they make from the organisation, so they're probably eager to make their own AV thicket.

* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Microsoft
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/MPEG_LA
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Audio-video_patents

This patent mightn't change much, but it's the weight of the hundreds of patents that's spoiling the AV field.

Microsoft is a member of MPEG-LA, but they pay more royalties than they make from the organisation, so they're probably eager to make their own AV thicket.

* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Microsoft
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/MPEG_LA
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Audio-video_patents

This patent mightn't change much, but it's the weight of the hundreds of patents that's spoiling the AV field.

Microsoft is a member of MPEG-LA, but they pay more royalties than they make from the organisation, so they're probably eager to make their own AV thicket.

* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Microsoft
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/MPEG_LA
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Audio-video_patents