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."

9 of 201 comments (clear)

  1. 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. 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.

    1. 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.

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

    6,163,776

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

  5. 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.
  6. 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.