Red Hat Fights Patent Troll With GPL

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Red Hat Fights Patent Troll With GPL

Posted by Soulskill on Friday September 14, 2012 @07:08AM from the mightier-than-the-sword dept.

jfruh writes "Red Hat is in the middle of a patent lawsuit with Twin Peaks Software, which claims that a Red Hat subsidiary is abusing a Twin Peaks filesystem lawsuit. Now, Red Hat is launching an intriguing countermeasure: the company claims that Twin Peaks' own closed source software violates the GPL because it makes use of an open source disk utility that Red Hat holds the copyright on. Is this a smart move on Red Hat's part?"

14 of 98 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

s/filesystem lawsuit/filesystem patent/ by awkScooby · 2012-09-14 07:10 · Score: 5, Informative

It's a patent RedHat is accused of "abusing".
Not a NPE, Is it a Troll? by ZombieBraintrust · 2012-09-14 07:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

Doesn't seem to be a Patent Troll if the company has a product. Trolls are generally Non Practicing Entities. Are we going to start calling Apple, Google, and Microsoft patent trolls now?
1. Re:Not a NPE, Is it a Troll? by jedidiah · 2012-09-14 07:18 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Sure.
  A troll is a parasite extracting payment for something that isn't really his.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
2. Re:Not a NPE, Is it a Troll? by bwcbwc · 2012-09-14 07:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  In selected cases where the patent is obvious or duplicated by prior art, yes a lawsuit is still trolling even if you actually make use of the invention..
  
  --
  We are the 198 proof..
3. Re:Not a NPE, Is it a Troll? by ZombieBraintrust · 2012-09-14 07:33 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  No, Troll is not a generic name for an evil company. A Troll is a company whose primary source of income is patent lawsuits. This company doesn't fit that discription. It has another source of income that can be sued. You can't fight a patent Troll with GPL because a patent Troll doesn't have a product that uses GPL. A true patent Troll is just a P.O. Box and a lawyer.
4. Re:Not a NPE, Is it a Troll? by recoiledsnake · 2012-09-14 07:44 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Traditionally speaking, a patent troll was an NPE. I HATE rephrasings of meanings, which lead to the exact same 100 comment threads about the following issues:
  1) Open Source vs. open source
  2) Free vs. free vs. libre vs. beer vs. freedom
  3) Stealing vs. Copyright infringement
  4) Patent Troll vs. patent troll
  
  --
  This space for rent.
5. Re:Not a NPE, Is it a Troll? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-14 07:54 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll
  "Patent troll is a pejorative term used for a person or company who enforces patents against one or more alleged infringers in a manner considered aggressive or opportunistic with no intention to manufacture or market the patented invention.[1]"
  1 Alexander Poltorak. "On 'Patent Trolls' and Injunctive Relief"., ipfrontline.com, May 12, 2006
  ------
  Sorry, you were saying something?
6. Re:Not a NPE, Is it a Troll? by canajin56 · 2012-09-14 08:06 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  SCO wasn't a patent troll by any reasonable definition of the term. This is not because they had a product for sale, but because they didn't sue over patents.
  
  --
  ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
Doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-14 07:17 · Score: 5, Interesting

This is brilliant! Just accuse them of a GPL violation and they'll be forced to prove their source code is different by revealing it.
It's a wonder nobody has done this before.
1. Re:Doesn't matter by gomiam · 2012-09-14 07:36 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I guess the judge would usually consent, in that case, to reveal the code to experts under condition of secrecy. That way, the experts would be able to check whether the copyright allegations have any base and the code, should it not be infringing, would still stay closed.
  Even if the code was considered infringing, it would only need to be revealed to those customers that asked for it before three years (since the ruling in this case?) have passed. Unless one of those customer asks for it and decides to publish it, the code would still be unavailable.
Genius of the GPL revealed once again by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-14 07:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

Laugh all you want, but RMS keeps getting proved right over and over about Free Software.
1. Re:Genius of the GPL revealed once again by Galestar · 2012-09-14 07:37 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Nearly all Android users do not care about the Linux kernel being open.
  Its not about the user caring, its about the handset manufacturers caring.
  
  --
  AccountKiller
Re:Free publicity! by sjames · 2012-09-14 07:27 · Score: 4, Interesting

Not necessarily. It is likely that Twin Peaks kept it under their hat until Red Hat's deeper pockets were firmly committed.
Re:Prior Art? by Michael+Woodhams · 2012-09-14 10:39 · Score: 5, Informative

No, the GPL doesn't work like this. Having violated the GPL on this code, Twin Peaks are no longer licensed. They cannot reacquire a license simply by coming back into compliance. They need to explicitly be relicensed by the copyright holder (Red Hat), who are not likely to do so in this case.
It has been the norm for the resolution of GPL violations that the violator comes back into compliance and then is relicensed, because Free Software organizations are generally more interested in cooperation than conflict, but there is no legal requirement for Red Hat to follow this norm.
You can read the GPL here:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html

--
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.