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?"

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

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