Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Red Hat Hit With Patent Suit Over JBoss

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the at-least-it's-not-about-perfume dept.

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."

22 of 201 comments (clear)

  1. Untied States Patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  2. LOL marketing speak by Ninnle+Labs,+LLC · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:LOL marketing speak by von_rick · · Score: 5, Funny

      Its got what market craves. Its got electrolytes.

      --

      Face your daemons!

    2. Re:LOL marketing speak by Fozzyuw · · Score: 4, Informative

      Really? I was thinking it was from Idiocracy. Though, they were both written and directed by Mike Judge, I don't recall "electrolytes" being used in that film.

      In Idiocracy, the future is dumb and they replaced all forms of water (except the toilet) with Gateraid(tm) like product and frequently promote it as better because it has "electrolytes". Including watering plants with it. Which happens to be destroying the crop population and no one can figure out why... except Luke Wilson, smartest man in the world. =P

      Happily bought this film for $6 for my show of support. =)

      --
      "The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth." ~1984 George Orwell
  3. Fishy by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the Fscking Patent:

    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.

    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
    1. Re:Fishy by smallfries · · Score: 4, Informative

      ObjectStore came out in 1988. The version that we used back in 1998 definitely performed this mapping for C++ code. I don't know if it counts as prior art because I can't remember how it handled the schemata for the mapping.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    2. Re:Fishy by ckaminski · · Score: 5, Informative

      Disclaimer: I worked for ObjectStore for a while and for Progress (owner of ObjectStore) today.

      ObjectStore is NOT ORM. It is an OODBMS. Probably not quite what you want for prior art.

  4. Yay for selective quoting! by Slothrup · · Score: 5, Informative

    "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.
    1. Re:Yay for selective quoting! by duplicate-nickname · · Score: 4, Informative

      Good catch. On top of that, as long as a company meets a few small requirements for developing on a Windows platform, they can become a Microsoft partner. It is not some secret club that goes around suing OSS companies on behalf of Microsoft.

      --

      ÕÕ

    2. Re:Yay for selective quoting! by INeededALogin · · Score: 4, Funny

      Not sure what you are trying to say. Nobody here has an anti-Microsoft agenda.

    3. Re:Yay for selective quoting! by benjymouse · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Only their website doesn't even mention Microsoft as a partner. IBM, Borland, Sun and Oracle are mentioned as partners, though, with contact details.

      What was the intention of mentioning Microsoft and leaving out those partners? Is Microsoft a business partner at all?

      I hate software patents. But summaries like this blatantly trying to skew facts to weasel in hints of a grand Microsoft conspiracy does the fight against software patents disservice.

      What a crook. Bad! I had to look twice because I fully expected this to be a "kdawson". Not this time, though.

      --
      Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*
    4. Re:Yay for selective quoting! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Informative

      What was the intention of mentioning Microsoft and leaving out those partners? Is Microsoft a business partner at all?

      It's on the company info page:

      "Software Tree is an ISV partner with Microsoft."

      Of course, all you have to do to get that status is to write software that works on Windows, and most shops that develop Windows software and sell it are registered MS ISV partners.

      Of course, the guys are also:

      "Software Tree is an IBM Solution Developer Program partner."

      "Software Tree is a technology partner with Borland."

  5. Patent mentioned in article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    6,163,776

    Link to US PTO United States Patent: 6,163,776

  6. Wasn't Bilski supposed to have stopped these??? by BUL2294 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Wasn't Bilski supposed to have stopped these??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, that was simply the fevered hope of many open source criminals who seek to profit off the hard work and innovation of others.

    2. Re:Wasn't Bilski supposed to have stopped these??? by mabhatter654 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      it's closed source DMCA protected software. There's no way law abiding programmers could see the source code and most of the key developers in these cases have too little time to reverse engineer other people's products.

      In short a person "skilled in the art" saw some trade magazine article about a products general function and recreated it without looking... that's pretty much the definition of "general knowledge" as applied to patents.

  7. Prior art? BO vs. Cognos by H0p313ss · · Score: 4, Informative

    "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
    1. Re:Prior art? BO vs. Cognos by H0p313ss · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Furthermore... they seem to be trying to patent what TopLink was already doing prior to 1996.

      For those who care, TopLink has now been opensourced as EclipseLink

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
  8. Re:Civil Procedure Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    They can, because RedHat is selling/offering their software in that state.

  9. Crack down on forum shopping by davidwr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  10. Re:Civil Procedure Question by deathy_epl+ccs · · Score: 4, Funny

    They can, because RedHat is selling/offering their software in that state.

    Note to self: When I start selling my software, refuse to sell it in Texas.

  11. Re:TopLink by Ninnle+Labs,+LLC · · Score: 5, Informative
    Actually this same company already filed suit against Oracle claiming that TopLink violated their patents. http://www.setexasrecord.com/news/210664-recent-patentcopyright-infringement-cases-filed-in-u.s.-district-courts

    Software Tree claims that Oracle has infringed the '776 Patent through products including the Oracle TopLink.

    "Defendant has actual knowledge of the '776 Patent, and actual knowledge that the Oracle product known as Oracle TopLink product, and all other Oracle products that include TopLink, infringe the '776 Patent," the original complaint states.