The Long-Term Impact of Jacobsen v. Katzer

snydeq writes "Lawyer Jonathan Moskin has called into question the long-term impact last year's Java Model Railroad Interface court ruling will have on open source adoption among corporate entities. For many, the case in question, Jacobsen v. Katzer, has represented a boon for open source, laying down a legal foundation for the protection of open source developers. But as Moskin sees it, the ruling 'enables a set of potentially onerous monetary remedies for failures to comply with even modest license terms, and it subjects a potentially larger community of intellectual property users to liability.' In other words, in Moskin's eyes, Jacobsen v. Katzer could make firms wary of using open source software because they fear that someone in the food chain has violated a copyright, thus exposing them to lawsuit. It should be noted that Moskin's firm has represented Microsoft in anti-trust litigation before the European Union."

Comments

Maybe, maybe not

[rewt66]

IANAL. Having gotten that standard disclaimer out of the way, here's how I understand it. Jacobsen v. Katzer was a blatant, deliberate ripoff of open source code, followed (IIRC) by suing the original author for using his own code that the thief had claimed after stealing it. Said thief claimed that the open source license didn't mean anything, so that the thief's claim on the code was the only real one. Said thief lost the case. Now, I may have some of the foregoing details wrong. Don't take that as the gospel about what happened. But the point is, this case doesn't have much to do with accidental infringement. So let's take a specific example. Let's say open source project X unwittingly gets some code in it that is actually owned by company Y. Let's say that you, company Z, are using this code in a widget that you have shipped a large number (N) of. Now company Y is raising a stink. Do you have to either pay company Y for the use of their code or update all of your widgets in the field? Yes, unless company Y decides to be nice. (Note, however, that this is no different than a situation that Microsoft found itself in a few years back, so it's no different because the code was open source.) Are you liable for some large number of dollars times N to penalize you for stealing company Y's code? Probably not, unless your lawyers do a lousy job. You did it in innocence, which is completely different than the facts of this case.

Re:Maybe, maybe not

[Todd Knarr]

Is it? Here's a link to the GrokLaw article on the case. A quick check vs. the court filings indicates the article is correct. What I find: Jacobsen developed the software and methods included in it. Katzer took those, filed for patents on them, and tried to bill Jacobsen for using those patents. Jacobsen sued for declaratory judgement that his software wasn't infringing and the patents were invalid, based in part on the fact that Katzer failed to mention Jacobsen's software in his patent application or that the methods Katzer was claiming a patent on had been published more than a year prior to the filing.

And if you want more details, here's the Groklaw article on the Appeals Court's overturning of the district court's decision. It includes the complete text of the Appeals Court's ruling, so you can compare the analysis to what the court actually said and see for yourself that the analysis is on target.

So why doesn't this affect closed source software?

[Vellmont]

If you know even a tiny amount about the case, it actually was about commercial closed source software that violated the GPL. So if this is going to affect businesses opinions of software and risk, why is commercial software somehow immune from FUD?

It seems to me that open source software has LESS of a change of a license violation, for the very fact that anyone can look for anyone license violations. Closed source software is the one with the potential for all those scary skeletons in the closet. If you're to believe the Microsoft lawyer, I guess those closed source software operations should start shitting bricks.