Slashdot Mirror
Linux Patent Infringement Lawsuit Filed Against Red Hat/Novell
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.'"
Those patents cover GUI patents, they apply to window managers that provide virtual desktops. It has nothing to do with the Linux Kernel itself.
Now that Microsoft have taken all they can from SCO FUD, they'll start another attack vector.
Vigilantibus non dormientibus æquitas subvenit
The linked article actually already has the guy coming on board from Microsoft to the patent troll company. I thought I might have to look for it myself. Teh Intraweb, is there anything it can't do?
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
Lawsuits are a part of business now. Hopefully all the companies that have a vested interest in Linux and Open Source will step up and clear up this issue and all patent problems. I can't imagine IBM, Oracle, HP and all the F-500 companies that use Linux allowing it to disappear or be damaged.
at Groklaw. ,PJ sets it out cleanly and succinctly.
As usual
SCO II has arrived.
Trying to associate Microsoft with "fun" is like trying to associate Satan with aromatherapy. -Tycho
oh... i meant to write FUD
Happy 10th anniversary Slashdot... I sure miss the pre-Politics and FUD-free times...
I'm going to enjoy watching this play out. It should be noted that this isn't against 'Linux' but appears to be against X... Or maybe KDE... Or Gnome... Or Trolltech's Qt... Or... I'm not really sure because the patent is so vague that it covers just about anything I can think of that does more than 1 thing on the screen at the same time. Even Clippy would violate this patent because it has an input box (workspace) in its dialog while Office is still on the screen.
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?
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
Time to get this done and over with. I guess this will either be the precedent that will silence others or the beginning of the end for The Penguin.
After this attack, it is clear that changing the EU law and allowing software patents becomes much more difficult.
There are lots of people in EU using linux distributions without any legal concerns that would be very damaged the very day that EU suddenly recognizes this troll patent.
When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
The patent race has begun.
Anyone taking bets on how long it will take for the OS community to provide a workaround?
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Wasn't http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/ created to combat this sort of event? What happens if the linux camp responds with suites of their own? Looking at OIN's portfolio, some of those patents look rather weighty. Not to mention that Novell, IBM, Redhat, and Sony all support linux and all have extremely large portfolios of their own. Did the principle of M.A.D. that the industry has relied on to keep from imploding just fly out the window? [IANAL, Rampant Speculation, etc, etc]
All patents have to (or at least are supposed to) list similar but distinct prior art, in order to distinguish their own unique invention. You can't point to the disclosed prior inventions on the patent application itself and go "Ah hah, gotcha!". I mean, unless you like to pretend that you're a lawyer on Slashdot.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Whether we like it or not, "linux" has almost from the start meant more than just a kernel.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
This patent is old, but not yet past the patent expiration date (that's 21 years, isn't it?), so it seems to pre-date any prior art I can think of. That seems to make it plausible.
But this patent was granted to Xerox, NOT "IP Innovation LLC". So why the hell is this 3rd party suing over a patent it wasn't granted?
The content of this patent is given in a language that is so obtuse that I can't tell whether it's describing something that was obvious, or if it's describing a single large virtual desktop, or if it's talking about something completely different than the "workspaces" we're used to seeing today. And I really don't have the time this morning to try deciphering it.
Apparently IP Innovations LLC is a subsidiary of Acacia, one of the largest patent troll groups around according to Troll Tracker. IP Innovations has only been around since 2002 with 5 employees and revenues less than $1 million, according to their listing on Fedvendor, so it's quite perverse to be trying to sue over a patent issued to somebody else in 1991...
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
So you mean that making a patent deal with Microsoft doesn't really protect Novell from patent infringment suits? Well, isn't that the strangest thing...
I think Novell is about to figure out that no matter how you look at it, they got the short end of the stick in the Microsoft deal. They paid a lot of money so that firms other than Microsoft could sue them for patent infringement. Wonder if they'll just pay off this company like they did Microsoft. Wonder if they can afford to pay off all of the companies that will bring patent infringement suits against them.
What a way to paint a big, red, sue-me-for-patent-infringement-target on their company.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
The more companies and people they sue successfully, the better their chances are.. right?
So, perhaps they are going after what they perceive as the 'weaker targets' in order to solidify this?
So, they go after red hat and novell, hoping they will pay...
IBM, etc have far more cash and they are not going after them because they would get pummeled into the ground.
Smells like a pump and dump, or a pump and sell deal with this patent troll, especially with the M$ goon with them.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
all the legal and related costs - even if it is just for patent related lawsuits.
can i vote for a change in the law.
Good spotting. Subtle and confusing though!
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
This is a suit against distributors and/or the X-org team. It has nothing to do with the Linux kernel. You could just as easily remove X11 from your system and still have a useful box (e.g. server).
That being said, these "IP warehouse" douchebags have got to fucking stop. How on earth did we do "$20 million" in damages to a company which didn't invest in the R&D, and doesn't sell products based on it. They probably acquired it for a couple million (joke).
That also being said, wtf. Not like multiple desktops/windows is a new X11 feature. Why sue now? I think there should be a statue of limitations on filing patent suits. Otherwise, this will just keep getting worse.
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Prior art, not referred to in the patent troller's application (or the original patent): Xerox PARC Smalltalk MVC, circa the 70's.
Next.
## NB: Comment here
...they better have deep pockets.
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
Rumor has it Darl McBride can be seen begging for change outside the doors of IP Innovation LLC.
...I'm off to patent a system in which you use a circuit board covered with lettered tiles that complete circuits to input data into a PC. But it's totally not the same as the keyboard! Until, of course, I want to sue the people who make keyboards for infringing on my patent. Next up: a clear, tasteless liquid composed of hydrogen and oxygen atoms in a 2-to-1 ratio...I'll see you in court, God!
Now, I tend to consider all patents ridiculous, but this one is particularly so. It should never have been granted. It's obvious, and consists of a patent on the idea of windows showing up in multiple workspaces in the abstract, basically (though dressed up in incredibly verbose patentese and software-speak to disguise that). I'm almost certain prior art exists that should invalidate it - trouble would be digging it up in lawyer-acceptable form. Looking to ancient but then-innovative 80s systems like Amigas and Lisp Machines / Emacs should help.
None the less, a microsoft (or more precisely Ballmer, Gates &co. old boy network - eventually I'd expect they'll move on from microsoft totally, the process has already begun, and be the same enemy with a different name, a common trick to evade and misdirect criticism) nuisance lawsuit which will cost linux using corporations like Redhat and Novell millions, probably tens of millions, to defend against.
The patent system shouldn't be reformed. It should just be fucking erased.
I am talking about Microsoft's spin machine (read Ballmer). They (Microsoft), are going to spin this whole thing as a Linux issue yet it isn't as far as I understand. The overall result will be some kind of benefit to them.
How you got modded +5 Informative for providing a link to the Groklaw article that is already linked in the fscking summary is beyond me.
Or maybe it just means that neither you nor the 4 people who modded you up actually clicked on any links in the summary.
isnt fvwm, vtwm, mwm all some of the oldest window managers for the x-window-system on the *nixes? isnt that glaringly obvious prior art?
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
But that would be hard to get. What we need is a patent license. If you sue over a patent you have no intention of ever implementing, you lose your right to have patents.
I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
Here in Europe that doesn't sound too strange, but from other a US perspective it's like... man from France, moves to Spain, starts company in Germany, buys patents from Italian company, and sues companies in Sweden, Norway and England. In Andora, Back'o'beyond.
Feel sorry for Red Hat et al that have to compete against players who play such low hand tactics as court battles. RH's money should better be used to improve their product, but then again, their effort will help the whole FOSS community gaining business acceptance and standing.
--- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---
There's a Microsoft Power tool that mimics this behavior on Windows XP. Shouldn't they be suing Microsoft?
They are attacking companies that make money selling Linux.
Are they allowed to do that? I thought the patent system was set up to punish the people/companies who manufacture or produce the infringing... thing, not those who sell it. I mean, can they sue Business Depot, or Amazon.com for selling Linux, and if so, are they?
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
If it's a Xerox patent from the 80's, doesn't that mean Microsoft is infringing on it as well? That would be hilarious if M$ ended up getting sued.
Shameless plug alert: Game server control panel
Just like it saved us from "Tivo-ization"!.
No. Wait. Hypervisors. Damn.
Well, the GPL3 was the magic cure against software patents, wasn't it?
Err. No.
Hmmm.
Can anybody remind me what all the fire and brimstone surrounding the GPL3 and doomsday scenarios were, and how the GPL3 was meant to sort out the threats to FLOSS, please? To me it looks like it is totally ineffective against two of its main targets (Tivos and software patents), but that CAN'T be right, can it? Otherwise that would mean the FSF had been leading us on all this time.
I'm probably a bit older than your average /.'er so I remember lots of applications that 'violate' this patent. There was a great task switcher called Desqview (Quarterdeck software) too. Toward the end they made a product called "Desqview X" which actually supported the X-window protocol directly under DOS.
Of course Sun had stuff that predates this too. Their Open Look Window Manager (olwm) was around for quite a while before this. Olwm was the first window manager that I used under Linux too. That would have been in 1991 or so which may or may not pre-date the patent.
--
This space for rent
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=322261&cid=20911241
Red Hat passes on Microsoft extortion, then is sued by a Microsoft straw man. This is how Microsoft operates. They have the time and money to do what they like without significant impunity. Things will never change until the U.S. government breaks them up and forces them to open the API or until the computer business paradigm changes so dramatically, that they have no business. I wouldn't count on the latter any time soon.
------
I posted something that quickly fell.
Ok, first of all, this will not stand up in court, ever. Virtual desktops have been around forever so it could be easy to argue that they have failed to try to enforce their patent, meaning it should be declared void. Then it is most likely prior art, obviousness, etc ...
Here comes the catch. It doesn't matter that they will lose. It is a patent troll company, it doesn't mind going bankrupt. All it cares about is a) a small chance of having people settle out of court b) causing damage to the company they sue, either because of their legal costs, or by scaring investors away. This is one example of how the patent system is broken, you can set up a shell company and use it to cause damage to your competitors without any valid claim at all. If you filibuster the case it will cause them to have to waste a load of cash, it will add uncertainty to their business, etc... The only drawback would be if you get caught with the hand sufficiently far down the cookie jar that you could get sued/tried for corruption, but as we all know, that won't happen.
> 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.
Just stating the obvious, but patent rights are not natural or inalienable. First because -- as it seems, understand I'm no native English speaker -- they're exclusive to humans. I.e., companies could never have (or buy) inalienable rights (that's why I said "obvious", IANAL, bear with me please).
Such rights were created to foster innovation, to protect a few who were enlightened to be inventors in a crowd who would immitate them without understanding or being able to further develop inventions. Patents are, as a manner of saying, society created and can be easily withdrawn or surrendered.
At times, we see such rights strongly limited as is the case of non-existing software patents in Europe -- or the akin example of the USA not recognizing book copyrights in recent history. Again, IANAL, please correct me where I'm wrong.
This is not the case now. There's a lot of innovation going on. So much that the word itself turned into a fad, with non-innovative people (e.g., m$) wanting to be it, too. Patents are not the great idea they were in the past: by protecting inventors too much, we are now making them work less and preventing others to be able to invent -- which would be of great benefit to society. So patents are now harmful to citizens and a way for corporate economic power -- in other words, a way to trump capitalism.
IMHO, they should be shortened or eliminated where applicable.
Note that in the filing they name the products as "RedHat Linux", and for the two Novell products, they spell it "Linex". Almost like they are giving Novell a way out on a legal technicality. People have gotten out of speeding tickets over a mispelled name before, so why not here?
"I'm sorry your honor, but we do not produce a product called Linex. We do however have a product called Linux"
"Case dismissed!"
Well obviously they are going to sue the companies. What are they going to do, sue 45 year old guys still living in their mom's basement, or take away Lunis Torvball's Geo Metro? These guys don't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of.
So they have to sue the behind-the-scenes power brokers who are using teh Lunix as a stick to attack Microsoft with: Sun, IBM, Novell, etc. In other words, they are going after the people who own Lunix, in reality if not in name.
Number one, if they are basing it off of prior art then why wasn't this complaint filed 16 years ago. Number two, Linux companies aren't profiting off of the software, they are profiting off of paid support through subscription so what damages are they implying. (You can't say that Linux didn't have a strong market share in the server market back in the 90's) Number three, the code has been open on Linux for a long time. If there is a complaint, disclose the code so it can be fixed. Number four, because the system is open, regardless of how many lawsuits there are, companies suing the Linux community wastes their own resources just like SCO did. Businesses that will do this will end up bankrupt because the information is already readily available to all programmers across the world.
With such free information available to everyone it diversifies focus on which companies will be sued. If you start suing US companies such as Redhat (North Carolina) and Novell(Massachusetts) then it forces foreign countries to take up the slack. Very stupid of American companies to even think of taking American jobs away and indirectly providing more jobs overseas. My suggestion is to be more innovative to keep up with the free information. If there is a conflict, I would suggest negotiation or disclosing the code because this community thrives on forking.
often happens after a patent infringement claim is a counter-claim with another patent, and then a cross-licensing agreement is often reached to settle the situation
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.
No sig today...
Patents troll outfits engage in little or no engineering and marketing of their own. So how do you use your own patent arsenal against them??
I'm afraid the OIN has provided a false sense of security. FOSS cannot continue to flourish under what amounts to the patenting of mathematics, a fundamental threat to intellectual freedom.
The other shoe is dropping.
Reading the patent extract on Google, it sounded like it might cover the work-space pager that shows up in the tool-bar on most window-managers (or floats in the window on some others). CDE has been around since the mid-1990's (I first saw it in 1995 on HP-UX). So why suddenly file suit now? And why not against Sun/HP/IBM for using CDE for the last 12 years?
The patent is dated 1991. Do any of the old-timers remember if some of the pre-1991 window-managers (such as twm or uwm) had similiar features as prior art?
Isn't Microsoft going to help Novell? They being patent buddies and all, I would assume they get to share patent protections. I wonder if Microsoft will even jump in and co-defend?
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
Of course, this situation of a company solely litigating patents is the chink in the "defensive patent" armour which so many companies think protects them.
if someone was able to find conclusive/hard evidence directly linking m$ to this case, it mite be the final proof that m$ is actively pursuing a monopoly.
Let's collect all prior art at this site, just as we successfully did the last time when redhat faced a patent infringement lawsuit.
http://helpredhat.dyndns.org/
cu,
Jan
Both Novell and Redhat make GNU/Linux distributions, which they sell with hardware. This means that their product (the GNU/Linux) contains the patents. They are not simply selling the software. Of course, you could argue that they have not written the patent-infringing software itself, but that, I think (IANAL), is covered by IP law. When you buy a piece of technology from a subcontractor, the contracts will probably stipulate that all technology in the device has been licensed from any patent holders, releasing the buyer from liability. Since OSS is used without such contracts, there is no protection for the user.
Badgers, we don't need no stinking badgers! - UHF
Let us assume for a moment that Microsoft-- er, I mean IP Innovation LLC wins this case. And let us assume that Red Hat and other Linux distributors are then forced to pay a patent royalty for every copy of the operating system that they sell.
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.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Couldn't companies like Red Hat and Novell get around this kind of thing by simply selling support and never media in a box? Fedora is a separate entity from Red Hat and provides free downloads. If a group like Fedora decided to have "stable" release, similar to Ubuntu's LTS system, then Red Hat could sell manuals and support for the "stable" release. Therefore, they could get around actually having to make money from distributing anything that could infringe on such patents and the patent companies like Acacia would be forced to go after communities instead of big companies. IANAL, but it seems like a logical approach to me. Think about it, do you see something like the Debian community getting sued?
(A) refrain from using a linux desktop for more than a year, or
(B) do whatever IP InnovatioN LLC or its holding company Acacia Technologies wants them to do. (I'm aware that this lawsuit is only targeted at Red Hat Inc. and Novell Inc., but once IP Innovation LLC has some money why couldn't they repeat the trick to everyone else?).
Oops sorry i'm not allowed to say X-windows anymore, am I? I meant: the X window system(TM).
IIRC the GIF patent lawsuit went in a similar vein: sue just before the patent is going to run out, then the defendants are more likely to give in because the lawsuit might last longer than the remaining lifetime of the patent anyway, and they'll be able to use the technology again soon.
If you live in a country that tolerates software patents, I'd suggest you go do something about it (if you like multiple desktops, that is).
PS: who t.f. is "Technology licensing corporation", anyway?
PPS: I'm surprised Intellectual Ventures didn't bring this lawsuit.
PPPS here's the complaint (from Groklaw, see if you can get it from Pacer if you don't trust that).
And here's Acacia's announcement that IP Innovation LLC is "a wholly owned subsidiary" of theirs, for suing with GUI patents.
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
One of the justifications of the patent system is that an engineer could file one on his invention and could get a reward for his work in that way.
If the engineer is actively going about trying to sell his invention to companies who are yet to come up with a similar idea, there is no problem. Patent trolls don't do that.
I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
I would like to see the Open Invention Network try to buy this patent from them. But then again, it's only in force until December of 2008. Still, it could make these this suit go away. On the other hand, it's probably best to defeat it in court if possible.
Reasons not to worry:
I doubt that Microsoft is behind this. It's not one of their patents, and it's a weak claim. If Microsoft does something with patents, it's likely to involve something that has to be Microsoft-compatible, like Samba or Wine.
I know next to nothing about business and the law but if these patent related suits continue, wouldn't it make sense for RedHat and friends to just start moving their business HQ out of the US? Sure, it may initially cost money to make the move, but it seems like a lot of money could be saved by not participating in the litigation that is to come.
Still broke. I just saw the laser pointer cat patent the other day. Very sad state of affairs.
Morality, filters both ways.
I developed graphics workstation software in the period 1970-1990. There is an abundance of prior art for these claimed patents. Windowing and the idea of multiple views of a single workspace on a single display was commonplace during that period.
There were many academic papers and conferences; ACM SIGGRAPH publications go back to 1967 at least. By the time SIGGRAPH organized, the field of computer graphics was already well-established: many proprietary graphics systems were already in use in private industry and government. Newman and Sproull published their landmark text Principles of Interactive Computer Graphics in 1973.
Other especially good veins to mine for prior art are satellite imaging software for both government use (spy satellites) and for oil prospecting. Another active area was geophysical processing workstation software. The major oil companies were the non-military non-spy pioneers in these areas.
And where's the attack on Sun and HP for their own proprietary window managers that provided virtual desktops? Heck, those were in use on workstations back in the 1990s. And, presumably, the company will be suing Microsoft soon for its virtual desktop PowerToy for XP ... unless they coincidentally paid out a license fee recently, I suppose.
Consider that this lawsuit comes just as Vista is floundering and RedHat is set to release their desktop OS.
In all honesty, if you believe this isnt coming from a MS gun then there's gotta be something wrong with you.
The thing I dont quite understand is why MS seem to be doing this case by case. rather than a full-frontal assault by a bunch of different MS lackeys at the same time we're seeing 1 after the other, all bring the fight from a different angle. Not only that, but they seem to be aiming to take anyone out that is doing anything thats UI related (by that i mean they look like they went after apple previously).
But if you were a patent troll company looking at things that implement the whole virtual desktop/desktop pager/whatever you want to call it, why Novell and RedHat? Sure they've got some cash - but in reality this is about what gnome and kde are capable of and that covers alot more than just those two vendors. Whats more than that, it covers alot of little individuals that have implemented desktop pages on just about any wm (windows, apple and X wm's). From an MS value point of view its easily undone and perhaps thats what its really about? if redhat/novell code it out/disable it in the distro's they're admitting its a problem.
Maybe they're hitting linux/foss 1 by 1 cause theres so few patent infringement cases they need them to be dragged on as long possible? or maybe this is the beginning of a flood.
It could be very interestingly dangerous though - like mp3, sue linux distro's until they have no functionality left and problem solved, who would want to use a linux desktop that has nothing worth while anymore?
Regardless of the out comes though, there are alot more battles to come.
May MS, bill gates and steve balmer rot in hell - i can imagine if such a place exists they're destined for an eternity of agony.
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.
Might you be older than the average Patent Reviewer?
--
What are the rates to rent your Sig?
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
There was also a company called 3 Rivers Systems (I think) that was selling windows based machines somewhat before the Lisa was demonstrated. I just googled it - it was called the PERQ and appears to have come out in 1979, so looks like they had been around a while when I saw one. They were way ahead of what the Lisa could do, BTW. This may not be prior art because it seems the designer came out of Xerox Parc but it could also mean that it produces a timeliness of filing defense.
BTW, isn't there law or case law about defending patents in a timely manner? Can someone comment on how that applies here?
Squirrel!
Yogi Berra once said 'it's too coincidental to be a coincidence', and this story just gets more coincidental - first Ballmer presciently insinuates that patent suits will be headed to open source, then a company that has some recent ties to MS goes and files suit against Red Hat and Novell (lotta good that MS deal did Novell, huh).
It gets even more coincidental, as Novell just announced they have updated their indemnity program - and the weirdest part is, Microsoft will extend their patent covenant to GPLv3 according to Novell.
What does it all mean?
--10scjed IANAL,AFAIK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tvtwm
I'm pretty sure it was CDE the Sun lab at Renesselaer was running back then and I'm pretty sure it had virtual desktops back then. If I were digging around for prior art, Sun's CDE would be a good place to start.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
How many of us will raise our hands and admit to our surprise when MS suddenly decides to "license" that patent technology from Acacia? Seriously, MS is clearly violating the patent too with their power toy. I really believe that MS is behind this, and when the license the patent in order to prop up the legal action it'll be the proof.
load "$",8,1
If before filing for a patent, you release prior art for it in any pubic way (such as a scientific publication, or a product) you shoot yourself in the foot. It still counts as prior art even though you yourself are the author.
The problem is that it's the fundamentals of the patent system which are broken, not the specifics. There are tons of patents which might apply to certain products, but the fact is that reading them would not help when you wanted to design something - hence granting them was wrong in the first place. Patents are typically useless accumulations of legal language describing trivial ideas which have been implemented elsewhere long ago. Unless you fix that, you won't fix the problem of patent trolls, either.
So why don't you patent, the patent troll business model then? Then you could attack them for infringing on your 'original' business model patent. not?
Don't feel bad that you didn't know about Links the web browser. It is generally a good browser, but the unfortunate choice of name has made this piece of software invisible to Google searches --can you imagine searching for "links" on the web? Every single existing web page on the web will turn up. It doesn't help to add the keywords "web" or "browser".
It was because of this that I finally gave up trying to use, get docs for, or otherwise find out more about "links" and switched to elinks, which is a forked project that's probably just as good, but is a lot easier to find on the web.
If you still want to work with "links", the correct keyword to Google for is "Twibright labs" --but of course, if I had no way of knowing that back when I was searching. And nowadays there's the Wikipedia, too.
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
I don't know but with the Supreme Court's comments on the KBR decision this might be a good chance to take the idea that software isn't patentable at all to them; I can't see that as a bad thing. They did mention that they've never ruled on the legality of software patents.
It seems like shortening the length of these types of patents would be such a simple solution to our current litigation problem. I would prefer no patents on software at all, but as an easy alternative, why not just make the life of a software patent something like 3 years. That would be plenty of time for a company with a good idea to get a competitive advantage, and it would prevent a lot of these wasteful lawsuits. After the 3 years the idea should go to the public domain, so that anyone can use it without fear of retribution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Desktop_Environment
Solaris CDE was announced in 1983 and is much older than this patent.
The 1980's vintage 512K Macs had something called a desktop switcher, which allowed flipping between multiple workspaces. (I used this as well)
http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Switcher.txt&showcomments=1
My rights don't need management.
(Sorry if I misunderstood the patent but IANAL)
/S
IANAPL
I am no a Patent Lawyer.
We can't go around giving all Lawyer Critter a bad name can we?
I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
Why don't "we" patent all forms of patent trolling as an open invention and then sue people who use our "invention" to generate income?
im sure its process one could "nail down" into a distinct set of procedures!
Question: I understand (and correct me if I am in error) that one can use patented techniques and processes for *private and noncommercial* use. So --
IF the patents in question are upheld (and I sincerely hope they are not) and Red Hat and Novell remove infringing code/features, then may I legally recompile *for my own use* infringing source code (from present releases, f'rexample) to include multiple desktops?
Any lawyers still following this thread?
It all appears MS is making up a new SCO.
A rational question is to ask "why also Novell"? Yes, we all know Novell and MS are buddies and all so this is a reason to think MS is not behind this lawsuit.
Imho what's going to happen is that Novell will be VERY collaborative and willing to accept to pay royalties for this BS patent, the game will be make Red Hat play alone. The expected aftermath (for MS-Novell) would be to make Red Hat look like a rogue company that does not respect IP. And yes, thanks to Novell the case will be much harder to solve for Red Hat than before, probably Novell will rush in making a deal so there's precedent...
Laugh at the ridiculous theory all you want, I just hope Novell does not prove me right on this one. But if they do, then I hope nobody will argue to me whose side Novell is playing for.
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
IBM's PROFS had an option for splitting the terminal into "windows" and you could define your "desktop" to have a (text) calendar / clock / notebook or some combination thereof. It ran on old iron so I'd say it beats the pants off this patent.
Why would legislators -- who are lawyers -- want such a disincentive, when it would dampen their industry's revenues? I don't know all the details of the UK's loser-pays system, but as I understand the US's approach to this, you pretty much have to fight to even recoup your actual legal costs here after a win. I can't recall ever hearing about a punitive award being handed out specifically to punish the act of bringing a meritless suit, or unnecessarily prolonging a case. (Of course I don't get out much, so my not hearing about it by no means means it's unheard of...)
If there is a proven legal strategy for getting such an award, I'd love to hear about it.
Pi Ran Out
Novell could buy a patent license but then they either violate the software license or everyone else gets to use their patent license without having to buy their own.
GPL prevents the distrubution without a license that would be passed right along to Redhat and its customers for free. Besided the patent is more about XWindows/KDE/Gnome than it is about Linux. Sun is the one going to be hurting on this; They use Gnome for Solaris and that is GPL'd. They wont be able to ship Solaris without a license that can then be used by everyone for free, even those who are not Sun customers. The Linux kernel doesn't have a workspace interface; thats a userspace program.
Assume I was drunk when I posted this.
I once watched some videos of Douglas Englebart demonstrating a mouse operated hypertext system back in the sixties. If there is prior art in any of that, I would think that blows these trolls out of the water.
Those can be viewed here: http://sloan.stanford.edu/mousesite/1968Demo.html
If this looks as though it is about to do serious damage to Linux then why should OIN not give MS both barrels? This happening just after some former MS execs join the trolls and Ballmer running his pie hole can't be a coincidence. If MS can't do this directly, they need to be informed that they aren't doing it by proxy either.
This has to be Microsoft's best shot, after the SCO "Unix copyrights" attack collapsed. They're clearly -- if indirectly -- targetting the Linux Desktop, which is what threatens Windows (and Office) revenue most.
But this lawsuit only relates to the desktop. RedHat, Novell, and the other distros are -- assuming worst case (best case for Microsoft) where the patent is upheld and the distro companies get slapped with an injunction -- still free to distribute Linux that doesn't include a desktop (or at least not one that appears to infringe). But most Linux server farms happily hum along in runlevel 3; no X Windows, no desktop, no Gnome or KDE. Even for those that want a graphical management console (although most sysadmins I know prefer to just ssh in and use the command line), things like webmin or HPs System Managment Homepage (for Proliants) don't need graphics running on the server.
So if this is Microsoft's best shot, they've lost the server room (not that they really ever had it).
Software patents don't exist or aren't enforceable in most of Europe. Or, for that matter, the rest of the world, but Microsoft has just lost major antitrust battles in Europe recently. European-based distros like Mandriva -- or even foreign subsidiaries of Novell and RedHat -- are free to continue distributing desktop Linux. It's quite possible that this action -- which while it may not be Microsoft filing the suit, it's pretty clearly Microsoft pulling the strings -- will fuel the already rising anti-Microsoft sentiment in Europe.
Again, if this is Microsoft's best shot, they're going to be losing the desktop in Europe. (Admittedly not overnight, but any exponential process starts slow. It'll follow a Gompertz curve, and it's just at the lower inflection point. (There will always be a few holdouts.)
If it isn't Microsoft's best shot -- as no doubt some would like to argue -- then what would be? And why aren't they taking it?
-- Alastair
should be forced to compensate both the parties sued and the US Patent Office for costs. Any patent holder who is not using his patent in good faith should be forced to move it into the public domain. Do this a few times and they may go away.
Another possibility involves pitch forks, torches, chain and four F350 Diesel Duallies, you figure it out.
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
REdhat doesn't sell RedHat Linux either, they sell "Red Hat Enterprise Linux".
The Patent Reform Act of 2007 should make the lives of patent trolls harder.
If you're angry about this, write your senators and tell them to support S.1145. It's not perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.
This is why the Microsoft patent deals with Linux vendors are so important and why Novell F-ed everything. They are playing on both sides. Basically, by signing these deals with Linux vendors they herd a lot of companies toward those vendors. That gives them a target, but they can't directly attack it. At the same time, they secretly help patent trolls to attack those Linux vendors, leaving the customer with a bad taste in their mouth. The customer had switched to Novell for "protection", and then Novell gets slapped with an injunction. "Linux isn't safe" they read in the press and hey go running back to Microsoft.
The patent is on a specific way of implementing virtual desktops. Even if it covered all virtual desktops, it wouldn't be a big deal and easy to work around.
It will be interesting to see these people claim damages. These features have been in UNIX window managers since the mid-80's and nobody ever complained about it; if it's so damaging, why has it taken until now? Furthermore, given that neither RedHat nor Novell actually developed the software in question, they may be suing the wrong people.
As for the patent itself, it contains very little that's original. In fact, even at the time the academic paper was written in 1986, a year prior to the patent application, there were already commercial systems in the market offering the same functionality. That shows you that not only the patent examiners, but also the researchers, are sometimes rather out of touch.
Xerox and Microsoft couldn't have delivered a better test case--it's just barely credible enough not to be thrown out right away, but in the end, it's no threat to Linux or anybody else. I predict this will end in a whimper, and in the end, will convince people that patent claims against Linux are harmless, and usually unproductive.
Is it me or does this patent have a better claim against tabbed browsers then an OS?
Ok after reading the thing, it does seem to apply to some prior art, IE the old mac control panels, that did come about in I think system 4. This also seems to at the core not to have even be patentable due to the non obvious clause?
"If an invention is not exactly the same as prior products or processes (which are referred to as the "prior art"), then it is considered novel. However, in order for an invention to be patentable, it must not only be novel, but it must also be a nonobvious improvement over the prior art. This determination is made by deciding whether the invention sought to be patented would have been obvious "to one of ordinary skill in the art." In other words, the invention is compared to the prior art and a determination is made whether the differences in the new invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the type of technology used in the invention."
Too me this seems pretty obvious even in 1987 when it was filed. Sure it is dressed up allot but look at some of the UI docs...
---In a time of Chimpanzees I was a Monkey.
with so-called "powertoys". Third-party add-ons existed long before.
This is a non-issue, today I did some exploratory research on this, and here is what I found out from their SEC filing:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/934549/000101968707002404/acacia_10q-063007.htm
* According to the SEC filings, Acacia had in the quarter ending in June 36 pending lawsuits against a number of companies (in each case they sue a number of companies, not only one).
* On that same filing they report revenues for the quarter of 5.8 million dollars.
* I counted the number of settlements for a 3-month period from their main web page, they settled with 47 defendants for July, August and September (not the same covered by the SEC, but I went just by what was reported).
* In the June 30th period they had Novell listed as a company they were suing over some portable device patent together with 23 other defendants (H&R Block Digital Tax Solutions, LLC, F/K/A H&R Block Digital Tax Solutions, Inc., Block Financial Corporation, Riverdeep, Inc., Oracle Corporation, SAP America, Inc. d/b/a SAP Americas, SAP AG, Bentley Systems, Inc., SPSS, Inc., Solidworks Corporation, Sonic Solutions, Corel Corporation, Corel, Inc., MISYS PLC, Adtran, Inc., Eastman Kodak Company, CA, Inc., UGS Corp., Business Objects Americas, Business Objects SA, Trend Micro Incorporated (California Corporation), EMC Corporation, Borland Software Corporation, Novell, Inc., Compuware Corporation and Avid Technology, Inc).
* There is a press release on their site that states that they settled with Novell on August 30th for this claim.
This means that Acacia is extracting on average 100,000 dollars per company they sue (5 millions divided by the number of settlements). Give or take depending on the fees from their lawyers (which are a million dollars). They spend more money keeping their patents alive than that and are operating at a loss right now (see the SEC filing).
To put things in perspective, getting a legal team in place and sending them to the courthouse would likely have a cost of 20,000 dollars just by showing up at the trial. This is with zero to no research on the case done. If you do some research, get external council and a little bit more, a defendant will probably be spending much more than 100,000 dollars by the time they show up in court.
This is probably why they pretty much settle with everyone, they are minor nuisance; They are a pest, and they have found a niche market where they can extort money from companies without going to court.
The patent is likely bogus, the patent would probably be thrown out of court, it would have no impact on Linux, but my bet is that Novell and Red Hat will settle out of court just because of the economics of it.
tf64
Ah, this is a repeat of a number of patent lawsuits. It's too bad that Alan Kay's group with Dan Ingalls et. al. invented overlapping windows in a GUI in the 1970's. Woops, forgot about the prior art. How about that.
http://news.squeak.org/2007/10/12/smalltalk-to-the-rescue-microsoft-ex-execs-sue-red-hat/
http://users.ipa.net/~dwighth/smalltalk/byte_aug81/design_principles_behind_smalltalk.html
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071011205044141
Do some search for workspace issues in
KDE and GNOME and you will be flooded by
the excitement, enthusiasm and high
praise of the feature: invaluable,
essential, a godsend.
That godsend is missing on Apple and
Microsoft systems and not by oversight.
It has been missing for two decades and
neither Apple nor Microsoft have given
any hint that they are going into
reverse. All they offer is workspaces as
add-on, not included in the operating
system.
To be sure the geek fanboys have been
tempered in the course of time. With KDE
2.0 you had 4 workspaces minimum, no way
to disable them. Nowadays both KDE and
GNOME come with a default of two
workspaces that can be reduced to one.
Unfortunately, workspaces are still in
the configuration tools offering clutter
and confusion, binding keys and mouse
clicks.
Let's be realistic. End users are still
buying PCs with 512MB of memory, or even
256MB outside the rich Europe and
America. They do not open 30
applications and leave them in memory.
They need workspaces like they need a
bullet in their head.
Here is one who is not a naive user. I
have 1GB of memory and still I do not
keep more than 3-4 programs running at
once. Indeed, whenever possible, I run
just one (and I power off my computer
when I'm finished). But I have to go
into KDE's and GNOME's configuration and
clean away all the defaults for the
workspaces, one by one.
All courtesy of the Unix dinos and their
unerring instinct for the odd choice.
Vtwm has been around since the late 80s, and I'm sure there are others from that era.
Next?
In a real emergency, we would have all fled in terror, and you would not have been notified.
EMACS
I am sure that this is the only reason that this lawsuit is being pursued. This gives MS more ammunition to promote their OS. "See, Linux is getting sued left right and center, are you sure you want to risk your enterprise on an operating system that is on that shaky a ground?". Never mind that they funded SCO for the first case, and now seemingly are pushing this lawsuit as well (and no doubt Acacia will turn out to have received major investments from some obscure company recently. That company will in turn have received money under the table from MS, just as SCO was backed).
This is such shady business shenanigans, I am amazed that a company can get away with it so consistently. But then I guess given the results of the DOJ investigations, MS has proven its above the law. Its too bad that MS wasn't broken up into baby-MSes the way some folks had speculated it might have been resolved. At least the cancer would be spreading more slowly.
Ah well, I am not that worried overall, I think this will do nothing to hurt Linux as a whole, although it will damage the Linux vendors like RedHat who have been targeted by this latest Redmond barrage.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Perhaps I'm naive, but it seems to me that the legal tactics against patent machines like Acacia should be similar to those of bogus shareholder lawsuits by folks like Lerach: tie up the management with red tape. Demand boxes of documents and all communications from the CEO of Acacia, not its shell company. With 200+ current lawsuits, they'd quickly run out of time to do more damage.
Of course, eliminating sw patents would be a better solution.
Patent trolls hinder the creation of new GNU/Linux distributions: If I wanted to start a new community or commercial GNU/Linux distro I would be very alarmed since I could become the target of patent trolls. So, every patent threat against GNU/Linux may have long-term consequences, even if the patent troll loses the case, as threats like this discourage future GNU/Linux distributors.
Is it just me or is it kind of creepy that Xerox patents, which include most of the prior art for just about anything to do with GUIs, are in the hands of patent trolls?
OK, we all know the new release of Ubuntu comes with Beryl(and all kinds of virtual desktop features) included...interesting that this lawsuit came out now, 6 days ahead of the next Ubuntu release.
http://www.acaciaresearch.com/investors_contact.htm
Acacia Research Corp. - Acacia Technologies
500 Newport Center Drive, Seventh Floor
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: 949-480-8300
So it doesn't look as it the company talks too much in its summary about actual businesses. Instead, the company does seem to derive most of its revenue from asserting IP claims, without actually building anything.
Ballmer is a Loose Cannon. Especially now that Bill Gates is gone. He needs to be reeled in by the rest of MS before he destroys the company. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1274983729713522403
"Time is nothing; timing is everything."
"it's a 1991 Xerox PARC patent" If so, shouldn't it expire in 2008 (a long-long time before the subect suit concludes) ? I don't think the community at large has much to be concerned about here.
The law is not an ass. No really.
geez just when I thought Daryl had lost his crack pipe for good looks like someone else must have picked it up.
Yes, thanks for pointing that out now, almost five years after I was desperately looking for information. Google, and the Internet, has evolved since then so that relevance, and the way it is measured, has changed. In early 2003, it was a lot harder trying to do a web search for "links" the web browser.
Similarly, Columbus would have had an easier time finding his way to India if he'd just checked Google Earth.
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
Well, the concept of a patent troll isn't very easily definable in binary terms, but everyone knows what one is through recognition. A person who invents something and goes from company to company trying to sell their idea (which I believe used to happen in the past, but i'm unaware of this happening in modern times) is innocent. A financially backed share-trading institute of legal fees isn't. The difference is in the mentality of the patent holder. If a court can argue the mentality between manslaughter and murder, they can argue the mentality between a crazy scientist with a good idea, and an opportunist lawyer who doesn't make anything. The first port of call would be their line of education.
I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
Nice idea, but unfortunately patent owners are not required to allow use of their patented ideas. Nor is there any rule that says the only way to take a royalty is a percentage of sales. They could demand a flat amount per user, per cpu (sound familiar?) or whatever. If you don't agree they don't license you to use the 'technology' and you're not allowed to. I can't see that as a win for anyone but competing os's which are licensed or which avoid patent infringement.
In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice; in practice there is.
See this lovely Computerworld article without possibility of reader feedback, that completely fails to mention the Microsoft connection or patent troll element:
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9042418&intsrc=hm_list
OK guys, you know what to do. Be polite. Computerworld just doesn't quite understand the concept of journalistic integrity, please explain it to them patiently, and provide some of the specifics they omitted.
Go!
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
Like the Computer world puff piece, slanted coverage and no possibility for visible reader feedback:
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2201116/red-hat-novell-targeted-patent
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
From halflifesource.com, whatever that is:
http://www.halflifesource.com/news/ip_innovation_files_patent_lawsuit_against_red_hat_novell/article9765.htm
Same deal, incomplete coverage with no possibility of visible reader feedback.
Just look here for a few more: http://news.google.com/?ncl=1121891361&hl=en&topic=t
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
The prior art for the 'cliclable' interface comes from the 1968 presentation (available on YouTube) "The Mother of all Demos(tm)". Englebart clicks on the screen with his mouse, bringing up a different screen. Prior art! Patent is invalid! Next!
this is the same patent thrown at m$ and apple in the 80s. back when xerox owned it. guess what happond thow xerox lost.
walterbyrd misrepresents what I wrote. I know because I am PJ. What I wrote was that there was prior *litigation* over the same patent.
Prior art is an entirely different matter, and I don't know if there is or isn't prior art. If you want to know how to find prior art and what it is, go to the article and you'll find links to information. Or just go to the Peer to Patent website. They have tutorials.
1. Sell copyright in infringing OSS to a syndicate
2. Syndicate takes out patent troll / key employees / liars
3. Other syndicates take out first syndicate
4. OSS code reverts to public domain?
Would you like to live in this utopia?
What product sells/releases IP Innovation LLC for its patent?
How much worthy lost IP Innovation LLC in the market because of people doesn't buy its product?
Why is Microsoft suing Novell also? I thought they had a patent agreement.
I think it is interesting to look a the involved parties stockquotes:
NovellAcacia
Redhat
Microsoft
Looks like the market reacted negatively at friday afternoon, but then everyone seemed to be back on level at least...