Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat Hit With Patent Suit Over JBoss
An anonymous reader writes "A small software company is claiming that Red Hat's JBoss open source middleware violates one of its patents and is asking a court to stop Red Hat from distributing the product. Software Tree LLC claims that JBoss infringes on its database patent for 'exchanging data and commands between an object oriented system and a relational system.' Software Tree's partners include Microsoft, and that the suit was filed in Eastern Texas, which is known as a plaintiff's paradise for patent actions."
If the company you are suing is incorporated in one state, and you, the plaintiff, is in another - can you sue in a third state that has no party resident within it, just because it's a "paradise", full of hang-em-high judges?
IANAL, as you may suspect.
Untied States Patent #078957284370958240976548037689725, Method and Apparatus for Initiating a Loud Communication Between a Liberal and a Conservative:
The Liberal says, "The government should pay for it!" The Conservative says, "Throw grandma down the stairs and out into the street!" A loud communication thus begins between the two.
I am going to sue every liberal and conservative in the country and seek an injunction to prevent them from talking to each other unless they pay me royalties.
According to its Web site, Software Tree specializes in "providing superior software infrastructure that shifts the application/database integration paradigm."
Well if nothing else they've definitely got the marketing speak down.
Since the plaintiff is, according to their own web site, based in California, RedHat can argue for a change of venue quite easily.
"Founded in 1997, Software Tree, LLC is a Silicon Valley based company"
From the Fscking Patent:
O RLY? They honestly want us to believe that they invented O/R mapping? Then what is this ACM paper from 1996?
Object-relational mapping by Scott Amber
Either somebody didn't do their homework and their patent is going to fall under a weight of prior art, or they're just plain patent trolls. Given that they waited until 2009 (9 years after the patent was issued!), I'm leaning toward the latter.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
"Software Tree's partners include Microsoft, IBM, Borland, and Sun"
Fixed that for you.
The difference between theory and practice is that, in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
East Texas is a hell hole.
6,163,776
Link to US PTO United States Patent: 6,163,776
I'm no lawyer but wasn't the Bilski decision supposed to put an end to these software patent lawsuits & (essentially) invalidate software patents? Software patents don't deal with "machines" or "transformations", so I'm confused as to how these continue... Or is the Bilski case waiting to have their day in front of the US Supreme Court and such cases will continue until a ruling comes down from SCOTUS...
Windows 3.1x calc: 3.11 - 3.10 = 0.00
So... If I understand correctly : every OO program that talk with a relational database is guilty?...
no more comments...
I can't call that English
"exchanging data and commands between an object oriented system and a relational system."
This sounds familiar... hmmm.... ah.
Business Objects' United States patent number 5,555,403 entitled "Relational Database Access System Using Semantically Dynamic Objects."
Fight fire with fire...
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
In the patent application (dated 1998) they stated:
One problem existing in the art is that there are no systems and methods to bridge the gap between the programming paradigm used for object-oriented systems and the programming paradigm used for relational systems.
(from here on in you know there's going to be no prior art submitted that does exactly that, when in fact there was plenty.)
Liar liar pants on fire.
There's also TopLink which was owned by Oracle for a while.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toplink
Another ORM patent? They were hit with one of these back in 2006. http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/30/0451221
After a quick glance through the patent (applied for in 1998) I fail to see how the claims differ from previous published work, but the claims are many, and the patent is long.
Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_Objects_Framework
NeXT, now Apple has patents on this stuff predating this with DBKit.
Seriously, you expect anyone to bite on that?
I miss the olden days when you had quality trolls around here. This...this is just pathetic.
do these people ever think, what will the public perception about their own products, website, whatever software they produced and will produce in future, be in the underground scene ? after they do this stunt ?
i mean, this is basically like raising a flag saying 'im an enemy of open source, come, get me'. EVEN if you are not.
underground scene doesnt hesitate from taking down fbi, cia, nasa, whatever web sites, and they produce a lot more viruses, trojans to hamper the companies perceived as 'evil'.
this even plagues microsoft. what will such a perception do to a small software company which does not have the resources to cope up with such setbacks ?
very stupid move in my opinion. internet is made of people. and people decide what's good or what's bad. if they decide that you are bad or evil, you are in deep trouble.
noone can fight 'the people'. regardless of what laws or rules of ethics or whatever philosophy says. you put out laws, if people think they are unfair or invalid, they dont obey them. you shell out punishments, yet they still disobey them. you say something is unethical or immoral, but people still do them. the people define what's moral, what's immoral, what's to do and what's not to do. you cant fight that.
Read radical news here
That court, and all federal courts, should start rejecting all suits from or against companies where neither party's main presence is in this court's jurisdiction.
Unless one of the party's principal business is in the Eastern District, the court should say "have you tried the courts where you and the defendant are principally located first?" and accept only cases where
1) those courts rejected the case for whatever reason and
2) the case would not be rejected if the companies were located in the Eastern District of Texas.
This would allow limited forum shopping in cases where "local" courts dismissed the case out of hand, but would not allow shopping just to get a more favorable jury or judge.
In the alternative, simply dismiss all cases that aren't the principle address of either party. However, that might take an act of Congress.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
He didn't use any of the following words:
GNAA, pervert, gun, democrat, republicans, bigot, Apple, IBM, Linux, Microsoft, Windows, black, white, Nazi, or Hitler, and his message was short enough to not hit the default "read more..." limit.
I give him points for being succinct and avoiding inflammatory language.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I've been writing custom data access layers since 2001, and they all have components that vaguely resemble this: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/patog/week15/OG/html/1329-2/US06163776-20080408.html. There needs to be a test that goes beyond "prior art" for software patents. Namely, if a software solution is obvious given the problem and the tools, then it should not be patentable. Otherwise, patent law does not advance the common good, it merely makes programming more expensive/less productive.
If we changed the licenses (e.g. GPL) to specifically forbid the distribution or use of the software in East Texas, would patent trolls still be able to file lawsuits there? It seems to me the "patent plaintiff-friendly" court's business plan has a serious design flaw...
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
There is a distinct sense of __non__coincedence__ in the air, the stink of M$ and rotten US corporatism and lack of effective regulation and enforcement of honest transparent business practices.
..."
In spite of what Rob Endele has said this is enemy action, "Once is coincedence
The US legal system, as I have said before, needs to brace up and get its act together on vexatious corporate litigation and to adopt the 'Costs in cause' rule so small defendants with a strong case will always defend. I look to senior academic lawyers, and the appelate benches of the Federal Appeal Circuit and the Supreme Court, which does not require legislation or a specific case but can be delt with by practice direction, to take a lead on this.
Those responsible for business competitiveness, especially in the EU need to do more. At minimum re-opening the M$ anti-trust investigations which I hope TomTom press for, from the Netherands. The State Attorneys and US Justice Department should also re-open the Anti-Trust suit compliance issue, especially after the discovered and proven complicity of M$ in the meritless SCO litigation.
The EU should also raise this as a WTO issue. Indeed the rational reaction is to say to US "We will hold all enforcement and co-operation on IP issues until you have reformed your broken Patent and Copyright systems" and stand firmly against term extension as the rest of the world needs the innovation effect of time limited IP rights. We should no-longer tolerate the East Texas fiasco and put as much back pressure on the US to end this legal corruption, which is, by no-means, too strong a description.
This can be effected by amicus-curia briefs by Commerce and Justice and by making it clear to these judges that all their decisions will be appealed until they resign or retire. They have done enough damage.
And no, after the Economic Crisis largely created by US corporate malfeasance, greed and lack of transperency the rest of the world needs to say 'enough' loudly, and refuse to toady or further pander to the economic nonsense, from the lunatic right, in Washington, which has done so much to damage the world economy.
IANAL.
The patent in question contains 42 claims. Which of those claims does the JBoss software allegedly violate?
Only claims 1, 16, 17, 18, 22, 28, 32, 36, and 40 are even worded as if they might be independent claims. Many of those reuse terms that would appear to be defined in earlier claims, which from a lay reading means they might be considered dependent claims.
The wording "in which the exchange unit further comprises" in claim #2 would seem to put a limit on how the "exchange unit" is defined. Are there such things as mutually dependent claims? This language is used repeatedly throughout the document. Does this language narrow the previous claims or is the hope merely that these claims will stand even if the claims they reference do not?
I don't see how the claims that reference earlier claims directly could stand on their own. If a system such as what claim 1 isn't unique and non-obvious, then how can a "system of claim 1, wherein..." be unique and non-obvious? Wouldn't an improvement of an obvious invention need to be the scope of all the claims?
Does this all boil down to claim 1?
Set us up the patent.
Why not forbid distribution of GPL software in any country software patents all together... ?
</sarcasm>
By the way, the GPL is not an EULA and cannot dictate terms of usage, only distribution!
Anyway, I assume you're joking, because the GPL is all about giving users freedom, not protecting yourself from being sued...
Didn't Red Hat put this behind them with this settlement? http://www.press.redhat.com/2008/07/15/a-readers-guide-to-the-firestar-settlement/
What is the good of making a settlement like this that was suppose to protect everybody when the next troll comes along? Red Hat should have not just given in and settled the previous case, because now every other joker with a patent related to ORM will come after them.
me at age 12 making the commodore vic20 to use a dbase i designed and/for storing data on tape drive for use in my games,
this included my own zork like game which had parsing of sentance structures and a hockey game which kept player and user data and scores on the tape.
As copyright exists at time of creation and when you create something you are in effect its creator i would hazard that these guys and the recent suits are part of the mpaa riaa prong attack aimed at developers. ...12 definitions.
TRYING TO KILL innovation will never succeed it only brings real developing into the underground WHERE YOU CANT HAVE IT.
So remember folks HACKERS/PIRATES of the world UNITE.
and yes hackers are coders and hackers are crackers and hackers all
Software Tree is also suing Oracle for patent infringement in E. Texas. I believe the suit was filed about a year ago.
"exchanging data and commands between an object oriented system and a relational system." -- that covers pretty much every OOP sofware that communicates with a database. If it's not a joke, how could such a patent be issued in the first place?
WTF, This suit just take time and money away from redhat thus slowing progress. Really need to stop Patent Troll before this decade is up.
There is a distinct sense of __non__coincedence__ in the air, the stink of M$ and rotten US corporatism and lack of effective regulation and enforcement of honest transparent business practices.
Where's your evidence Microsoft is involved. And about that part about corporations, you do know that Redhat is a corporations too? So is Dell and Hewlett-Packard, both of which are also named as defendants.
I don't like MS but I have not seen evidence MS is involved, unlike the SCO case.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Yes, that's what I am proposing. I don't know who makes the rules in the Federal system, whether it's just Congress, or whether it's the courts or themselves or their respective appellate courts as it is in some states.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Software Tree's partners include Microsoft
Lawsuit by proxy...again. Apparently Microsoft didn't learn anything from that little SCO fiasco.
Hopefully Software Tree has smarter management than Darl all-your-open-source-be-belonging-to-us McBride. But they're in bed with MS, that's a strike against them right off.
I think I'm with a lot of you here in suggesting you don't sell your software product in Texas. If they're going to play host to abusive patent litigation, let them write their own software.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Actually, despite the misleading headline, that CNet article describes the SCOTUS decision as *tightening* the test (i.e., making it harder to pass) -- which most of us would regard as a good thing, in reducing the number of no-shit-Sherlock patents and thereby making it harder for patent trolls to sue the modern world into oblivion. What the SCOTUS loosened were the criteria for what constitutes "obvious". From the CNet article:
The CNet article headline is terrible, and suggests the opposite of what actually happened. Basically, the newer looser criteria for what constitutes "obvious" actually *tighten* the test, and should (ideally) make it harder for trolls to game the system.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
JBoss is a peice of crap. I won't be sad if I nobody ever has to use it again.
That might be true if it were actually a big deal to become a MSFT "partner" but if you write software for Windows you can become one as the requirements really aren't strict. In this context it would be like saying someone who was suing a company for being fired and who had a MSCE was a MSFT plant. It really isn't hard to get either one.
Now if they show a stream of money going FROM MSFT to Software Tree, then there might be some SCO fishy stink here. But from the looks of their website it appears to be just another patent troll trying to cash in. If they are as broke as their crappy website appears I'm shocked that RH didn't just throw them a few bucks to piss off. They must have gotten stupid on their asking price or did something to piss off RH to end up in court, since from what I have seen it is usually cheaper to throw them a few bucks for a "permanent license" than it is to break out the lawyers.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
They got awarded this patent 8 years ago!
ORM was there WAY, WAY, WAY before that. This is just plain stupid and a microsoft proxy war that will brew GREAT PR for Red Hat and probably put one more nail in the coffin of sw patents.
NO SIG
"Anonymous Coward" is a well-known twitter sock puppet.
Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
All the EU Microsoft suits should be dropped. The plantifswere sun, oracle & IBM. The browser suit is Opera (Norway is not in the EU), Goggle & Mozilla Do you agree with that too?
Apparently Microsoft didn't learn anything from that little SCO fiasco.
Sure they did!
They learned that a patent suit against even the strongest of their enemies by an expendable cannon-fodder company can tie up their enemies for years and cost them lots of time and money that can be replaced from the sucked-dry husk of their sock-puppet.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
It is an incredibly stupid patent.
I think I've read something similar but I can't remember where or when so it's not all my idea:
Any patent infringement suit should be accompained with a deposit of 1/3 of the value you seek. Only then the suit would go on. If you win, you receive your money back plus the value the judge stipulates (at maximum the value you proposed initially) and accused party need to stop selling or license the patent; if you loose, your money goes to the accused party and you still need to indemnify the court and lawyers of the accused party.
This way it's like a poker bet: you may even bluff but someone can call your bluff and you'll pay. The 1/3 part is to protect the little guy that had a real patent violated by a big guy. But It will make patent trolls really worried cause they will now have to limit their bluffs or risk losing all their money.
I bet no patent troll could survive this troll hostile environment. If their patent is so good, they would win a first trial for a lesser value, accuse a second one for more money and go on. Any violating party would have an incentive to settle off-court. But a bad patent would mean a high cost upfront to their extortion schema. And a loss would really impact them.
Just my humble suggestion.
then sell 'service agreements'.
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
You guessed it!
Actually, despite the misleading headline, that CNet article describes the SCOTUS decision as *tightening* the test (i.e., making it harder to pass)
It depends on how you look at it. According to TFA it makes it easier to challenge patents, which is loosing the rules to challenging them. What would be harder is to get patents and have them upheld.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Yes I am what?
Really? Is that your argument?
Argument about what?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
First, why not also mention that Sun and IBM are also partners of the company? I'd think Sun being associated with a company attack JBoss would be a lot more interesting than Microsoft, since JBoss directly competes with Sun.
Second, EDT is not a plaintiff's paradise. Defendants have been doing better than plaintiffs there over the last couple of years.
>>Lawsuit by proxy...again. Apparently Microsoft didn't learn anything from that little SCO fiasco.
I wouild say the scox scam was helpful to msft. The scam sent this clear message: "if you contribute to Linux, expect a bogus lawsuit that will cost you around $100 million."
If you are ibm, a $100 million lawsuit may not be that big a deal, but what if you are not ibm?
Also, a lot of people still believe that there may be something illegal about Linux - better stay away from it, just to make sure.
Of course it does! What were you expecting? A miracle?
Interesting point, but I would argue that crimes of specificity, such as murder or robbery, are a different beast than infractions of a geographically vaguer nature, such as doing business nationwide in some way that violates copyright or patents. In the former case, the crime clearly occurs in a place, within a specific jurisdiction, and the crime should thus be prosecuted there.
In the latter case, however, the infraction is essentially happening everywhere at once -- and this is where the comparison to murder breaks down. Which legal forum, which jurisdiction, to choose for prosecuting any such legal case is much less clear, and absent any changes such as those David suggests leaves the system open to various abuses, as has been documented with regard to the curiously skewed rulings being handed down in eastern Texas.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Aha! Thank you for that, I was seriously scratching my head about the headline, but what you say here shines a light on that.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Wow! I've read and heard about patent claims that are obvious if not down right frivolous but this is the first time I know of that I've encountered one that hits close to home. Something really needs to be done to clean this up. IMHO, allowing this nonsense to go on just instills fear in developers and possibly inhibits natural progression.
Roughly 10 years ago when I first started with OOP in Java, I got tired of littering SQL statements throughout JSP pages and Servlets (spaghetti code syndrome). I started work on an API to use in all future apps I created that would allow me to centralize all SQL statements. Later when I learned how to use the Java Reflection API, I modified my original API to either populate JavaBeans from an RDBMS row or to create the SQL statement automatically from a JavaBean if I was performing a CRUD operation on the database.
Soon afterwards I discovered two open source programs that were doing a much better job than my homemade project. Ibatis and Hibernate. I don't remember which one stated it at the time, maybe both, but when I was reading the docs on these ORMS they said they were created because basically somebody had an itch to scratch and wanted an easier way to deal with the transition to/from OOP to RDBMS. The same reason I had began my own ORM...although at the time I don't think the buzzword (and obligatory acronym) existed for it. It's simply natural progression, not an invention.
I wonder how/if this is affecting great projects like Hibernate and Ibatis as well now. The current patent system is in a really sad state. If the company in TFA wins this, what does that mean for all the projects I've created using Hibernate or Ibatis, or even the couple that still run with my 'roll your own' ORM? Also, it's going to be in the back of the mind anytime now that when I encounter a fairly unique problem and believe I've cleverly found an elegant solution that is actually a logical evolution in writing code, that someone may have already patented it therefore causing me to suddenly become a patent infringer. It also makes me a little nervous to write a program that others may find useful and release it to the world open sourced because anyone can look at the code and then file their infringement charge. That's sad, it's stifling to innovation, and it sets us backwards.
Even if east Texas is patent friendly, I hope a judge has common sense and throws this right out. Even better, I hope the patent system gets the overhaul it very badly needs, quickly.
In the latter case, however, the infraction is essentially happening everywhere at once
You're right, infraction occurs everywhere and thus should be enforced anywhere.
David suggests leaves the system open to various abuses, as has been documented with regard to the curiously skewed rulings being handed down in eastern Texas.
So fix the system in east Texas. Don't change the whole thing because there may be a problem in one location.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The problem with a lack of clarity in jurisdiction is the potential this raises for forum shopping. With regard to patent issues, the eastern Texas circuit seems to skew towards the plaintiffs; with regard to other issues, there may be other courts that also have pronounced biases, that would thereby attract litigants shopping for forums pertinent to their specific issue. Forum shopping of any sort strikes me as inappropriate -- why should either the plaintiff or defendant be allowed the option of searching for a sympathetic court?
While eastern Texas is indeed notably broken, I would posit that its broken-ness is an outgrowth of the underlying problem of forum shopping. Moreover, the change David proposes (i.e., limit possible litigation forums in such cases to the jurisdictions in which either company has a principal presence or headquarters) is both 1) reasonable, and 2) minor.
I'm curious as to your opposition; is there some benefit to forum shopping that I am missing?
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Open source software vendors should be insulated from software patents.
I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
While eastern Texas is indeed notably broken, I would posit that its broken-ness is an outgrowth of the underlying problem of forum shopping.
Except that federal judges are appointed by the president. If the president is appointing judges in eastern Texas who are plaintiff friendly why isn't this happening everywhere?
I'm curious as to your opposition; is there some benefit to forum shopping that I am missing?
First I didn't say I was opposed, I just went up the thread to make sure I didn't. Actually if anything I oppose forum shopping. I also oppose more new laws, I actually believe most laws should be revoked and that what's left as well as new laws should be reevaluated every few years at most. The same with regulations.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I'm not sure. Other posters have noted the possibility that the volume of patent cases being tried in the district might constitute a significant portion of public revenues, at least with regard to the court system, which might be one possible reason for the current situation -- with the current crop of judges positioning the eastern Texas district as a kind of niche market for patent cases; however, I must confess that I am not knowledgeable enough to assess the validity of such a claim. As to presidential appointment, a judge generally serves for life, so the answer to why isn't this happening everywhere might have to do with the accidents of history as much as anything else, in terms of when past judges have retired and who happens to be president at the time. That said, this is all supposition, and I'm not really sure as to the real reasons.
Aha -- this is a position I can understand. And by "opposition", I was responding to your previous statement about changing the whole system:
I apologize for my lack of clarity. As to revoking most laws and regulations and requiring a review every few years, I support this idea in theory, but I am not so sure about the practicality of such an approach, particularly in any society as large and unwieldy as our own. The bigger the society, the less the sense of community, and (it seems, at least) the less some people will feel the need to be scrupulous. The concept of monkeyspheres might apply here. (While Cracked.com is a humour site, this particular posting strikes me as wiser than funny -- and actually not really that funny at all once the implications are considered.)
While revoking most laws leaves us open to various abuses of anything outside the law, on the flip side, we have our current various abuses of anything legislatable -- who do we get to write and implement laws, and how corrupt or corruptible are they? It begins to look like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of problem.
But then again, perhaps my less sanguine outlook is due to my more cynical upbringing in the DC area. One cannot come of age so close to the stink of power without seeing a few things related to the uglier sides of human nature. :-P
Cheers,
I'm not sure how that got marked as AC -- the previous posting is mine.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."