Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Red Hat's Secret Patent Deal

Posted by Soulskill on from the where-do-penguinburgers-come-from-anyway dept.

Bruce Perens writes "When patent troll Acacia sued Red Hat in 2007, it ended with a bang: Acacia's patents were invalidated by the court, and all software developers, open-source or not, had one less legal risk to cope with. So, why is the outcome of Red Hat's next tangle with Acacia being kept secret, and how is a Texas court helping to keep it that way? Could the outcome have placed Red Hat in violation of the open-source licenses on its own product?"

7 of 95 comments (clear)

  1. Dear Slashdot, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Copying the first paragraph of TFA, verbatim, does not make a helpful summary.

  2. This is pure speculation on the author's part by Byzantine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Mr. Perens has no idea what the terms of the settlement are. No one does, other than the parties and the judge. I don't know what his animus is against Red Hat, but the way this article is written is simply FUD.

    1. Re:This is pure speculation on the author's part by countertrolling · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We shouldn't allow this kind of secrecy. If it takes FUD to pry open the case, then I'm all for it. Sometimes it takes a sledgehammer to "tear down that wall".

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    2. Re:This is pure speculation on the author's part by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The only legitimate reason an agreement must be kept secret is to cover illegal activity

      No it isn't. It allows parties to negotiate a deal which is more favorable to one of them than the other usually gives to most people, without causing everyone who the second party negotiates with in the future to demand the same deal.

    3. Re:This is pure speculation on the author's part by jmcvetta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What difference does it make if the agreement is made before or after they file the lawsuit?

      Before a lawsuit is filed, we have two parties talking nicely trying to work out their differences. By filing suit, one of the parties is bringing the State into the dispute. They are asking that the State use force, or threat thereof, to resolve the dispute according to their wishes.

      This is a necessary and useful service, since not all disputes can be resolved amicably. However, the dispute is no longer a private matter between two parties - it has become a public matter. Citizens have a compelling interest in seeing that all operations of the State are conducted as transparently as possible. Allowing a public matter to be settled in secret is the very opposite of transparency.

  3. Re:East Texas and IP... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Either that, or only the bad decisions get posted on /.

  4. Re:Don't ask don't tell by icebike · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think maybe (parts of) the community might not want to know.

    You too, Brutus?

    Exactly, and the Judge enforcing a huge NDA over the discussion has probably abrogated the rights of some third party to discover violations of their IP or leave them twisting in the wind waiting to be sued by patent trolls for an infringement that they are totally unaware of.

    Did Red Hat essentially win the case, but can't tell anyone so that the patent trolls can continue to collect royalties on invalid patents?

    Did Red Hat lose the case and thereby violate the GPL and be at risk of losing their entire business?

    Maybe we need Judicial Impact statements in this country. Especially when the subject at hand affects the rights of non participants.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.