Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat Settles Patent Case
darthcamaro writes "Red Hat has settled another patent case with patent holding firm Acacia. This time the patent is US Patent #6,163,776, 'System and method for exchanging data and commands between an object oriented system and relational system.' While it's great that Red Hat has ended this particular patent threat, it's not yet clear how they've settled this case. The last time Red Hat tangled with Acacia they won in an Texas jury trial. 'Red Hat routinely addresses attempts to impede the innovative forces of open source via allegations of patent infringement,' Red Hat said in a statement. 'We can confirm that Red Hat, Inc and Software Tree LLC have settled patent litigation that was pending in federal court in the Eastern District of Texas.'"
a little birdy in the RHAT legal dept said so (tweet now deleted)
Denny Crane.
Lock and Load.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
I really hope they didn't pay them Giving these weasels money just encourages them. I'd add the traditional "unless the patent really was valid" but I really don't think any software patents are valid.
But given that the case settled, there's little chance those judges had much to do with it. Also, the reputation is that the court is extremely plaintiff-favorable - so it would not simply be that the judges are well versed in patent law. The implication is prejudice.
Bruce Perens.
that was pending in federal court in the Eastern District of Texas.'"
Enough is enough, with their cochamany legal antics and patent trolls.
I want to add a clause to the GPL forbidding use of software in the State of Texas, until they clear this up, and boycott the state -- with all software products, so Texas will not benefit from the software or technology until they clean up their act, and stop allowing 21st-century robbers to loot the treasuries of successful technlogy firms. Who's with me???
How many clear cases of stifled innovation do we need before we have a major overhaul of copyright? Western government is traditionally quite good about their public attitude to corruption. However, if there's one area of corruption that is visible to Joe average and rampant it's IP law. You can't even make a toy model of a real aircraft or car without paying royalties. (As if this is what the manufacturer's first motivation is. What a joke!). Music and film royalties predominately go to middle men and both industries whine on and on about lost profit. Now we have a situation where coming up with a new idea isn't lucrative because you might just step into some obscure patent.It's become a game of which company can sue the other into oblivion. How is that suppose to encourage invention and innovation? Is it any wonder the western world's going backwards in these areas?
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Connect this with Red Hat's recent statement to the U.S. Patent Office telling them to stop granting software patents, although the result in the Bilski case gives them no reason to do so.
Red Hat lost. They caved and paid for their own license, and everybody else has to negotiate separately.
It was obvious that if Acacia went after them again, they would not do so in a way that would allow the same outcome as their first case.
The sad thing about this is the way Red Hat has screwed the Open Source developer community. Not with this case, but with their conduct over the past decade. They refused to stick their neck out by lobbying aggressively for an end to software patenting, both in the industry and with government. Then, there was no sentiment in favor of ending software patenting in the industry when the Bilski case came about, and the court followed the BSA's amicus curae statement extensively while paying little attention to the Free Software / Open Source side.
What Red Hat did was court the biggest patent holders extensively for their business. And they got it in part by not rocking the boat on software patenting. So, they made that money on the backs of the community.
And now it's open season on open source. Thanks, guys.
Bruce Perens.
But given that the case settled, there's little chance those judges had much to do with it. Also, the reputation is that the court is extremely plaintiff-favorable - so it would not simply be that the judges are well versed in patent law. The implication is prejudice.
The judge had plenty to do with it. A lot happens involving the judge before an actual trial occurs. In particular, the parties argue claims construction, and then the judge rules on the meaning of the claims. That ruling came down on June 1, 2010 in this case. You can get a copy of that ruling here if you are curious.
The claims construction ruling can be a major turning point in a patent case, as that is when the parties find out what they are actually dealing with. Cases can be won or lost on claims construction.
As for prejudice, the fact is that EDT isn't even in the top 5 districts when it comes to favoring plaintiffs.
You don't "end" a patent threat by settling. Ever.
If Red Hat were to need someone to provide expert testimony for prior art in interfacing OO systems to relational systems, I developed such a method in SmallTalk and delivered in C++ in the early to mid 90's. This software is currently running the majority of semiconductor fabs world-wide and the technology is owned by Applied Materials - a company that would likely defend themselves vigorously against a suit by these boneheads.
Sometimes, real fast is almost as good as real-time.
The proprietary computer software development companies (yes, we need to treat them as partners). The large software customer companies (they are already our users, but through intermediaries like Red Hat so they don't know us). The press (because they help spread the message). The technically savvy electorate. Politicians. Judges.
Bruce Perens.
Published indeed - I contributed a chapter that contained information about this in the Wiley graduate level text book "Domain-Specific Application Frameworks" published in 2000. Also, the original design and development was part of the effort to build FACTORYworks, an enterprise MES that was designed by a consortium of major semiconductor vendors comprised of members of Sematech, the international semiconductor trade and technology organization. Chaired by FASTech Integration, members of the design group included Intel, Samsung, FASTech, Motorola, etc. This subject, mapping classes of objects to relational tables and all the associated technology was covered in general detail on pages 132-137 in the section "Persistence Classes".
Sometimes, real fast is almost as good as real-time.