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.
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
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."
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.
This is a game of two halves and four quarters right? Hope they stop for some entertainment mid-trial.
a workaround wont be necessary, there is prior art...
maybe you can write a letter to the editor...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
...they better have deep pockets.
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
...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!
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
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!"
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...
First, the patent doesn't refer to "prior art", it lists previous tech that is similar, and then describes how the new tech differs. This is required for all patent applications.
Second, citing anything by Xerox PARC as "prior art" isn't going to fly, becuase this patent was originally awarded to the very same Xerox. Somehow this new company obtained the rights to the patent, but you'll have a hard time convincing a judge that Xerox filed for a patent that isn't valid because of their own "prior art".
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
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
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!
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.
Read this as far as you wish, but one of M$ patent people when to IP Innovation on October 1st, the suit was filed October 9.
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.
Consider that this lawsuit comes just as Vista is floundering and RedHat is set to release their desktop OS.
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!
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.
I know that Mary Jo Foley asked MS if they were an Acacia client, and still hasn't gotten a response. Interestingly, she says that Novell is apparently an Acacia client - just not for this patent (yet), I guess.
--10scjed IANAL,AFAIK
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]
According to wikipedia CDE didn't come out until 1993.
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.
Both Novell and Redhat make GNU/Linux distributions, which they sell with hardware.
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.
-- Alastair
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.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
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"
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.
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 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.
"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.