Comments on: Red Hat sued over JBoss technology
Company gets hit by a patent lawsuit related to JBoss, just weeks after completing its purchase of the open-source software company.
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- Leaked HP, Gateway 'Core i3' laptops are low-cost
January 2, 2010 11:43 AM PST
- AT&T, Luke Wilson try smaller coverage number
January 2, 2010 9:41 AM PST
- For eBay sellers, a holiday hamster hangover
January 2, 2010 6:00 AM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
A company that on its own website states that it was founded in 2001 makes a claim on OO to DB technology?
Can you say prior art?
NeXT (Objective C to RDBMS) technology existed in early 90's.
Informix/IBM etc ... C++ to RDBMS technologies existed.
They are going to have to show how their patent is unqiue from the prior art, not just translation to a different OO langue, aka Java.
IMHO, its yet another reason why you really can't have effective Software patents.
A company that on its own website states that it was founded in 2001 makes a claim on OO to DB technology?
Can you say prior art?
NeXT (Objective C to RDBMS) technology existed in early 90's.
Informix/IBM etc ... C++ to RDBMS technologies existed.
They are going to have to show how their patent is unqiue from the prior art, not just translation to a different OO langue, aka Java.
IMHO, its yet another reason why you really can't have effective Software patents.
second is their choice of courts, though the article claims it can be filed in any court in which a violation is likely to have occurred, (thus any court that has redHat, and JBoss specifically, customers thus virtually anywhere) in that case it is customary to file in the court of your own incorporation or, if different, the court of your main base of operations. the home court of your opponent is also sometimes done as a gesture to say "we will win even with them having 'home court' advantage". in this case, I believe all three of these primary courts are one and the same
(the home base of redhat, either Tennessee or Georgia, might be a different court but Delaware and Maryland are certainly the same court)
this abnormality has a likely explanation mentioned in the story, the Texas based court has a history of expediting patent cases (i.e. the greedy are pulling out all stops)
but the most bizarre thing about this is the prior art. you would thing by the issuing of that patent that prior to 2001 no program ever tried to give and get information to/from a database. the patent does mention Object Oriented... a buzzword for a type of programming, so I wonder how C++ programs accessed databases before 2001? and certainly Visual C++ must be able to access databases... so why didn't they sue Microsoft? oh, that's right, Visual C++ has been around for a dog's age....
It is obvious to me that these ploys are an attempt to force a shallowpockets company to capitulate early, (can you say "out of court settlement" and "undeserved win") to increase their war chest, give a precident setting win and bulldoze a settlement (remember the 87 year old grandmother RIAA sued and got $17.000 because she she couldn't afford the attorney fees)
pray that the court system will see through the ploy and make them prove it before requiring injunction and/or a monitary layout by RedHat to continue operations
second is their choice of courts, though the article claims it can be filed in any court in which a violation is likely to have occurred, (thus any court that has redHat, and JBoss specifically, customers thus virtually anywhere) in that case it is customary to file in the court of your own incorporation or, if different, the court of your main base of operations. the home court of your opponent is also sometimes done as a gesture to say "we will win even with them having 'home court' advantage". in this case, I believe all three of these primary courts are one and the same
(the home base of redhat, either Tennessee or Georgia, might be a different court but Delaware and Maryland are certainly the same court)
this abnormality has a likely explanation mentioned in the story, the Texas based court has a history of expediting patent cases (i.e. the greedy are pulling out all stops)
but the most bizarre thing about this is the prior art. you would thing by the issuing of that patent that prior to 2001 no program ever tried to give and get information to/from a database. the patent does mention Object Oriented... a buzzword for a type of programming, so I wonder how C++ programs accessed databases before 2001? and certainly Visual C++ must be able to access databases... so why didn't they sue Microsoft? oh, that's right, Visual C++ has been around for a dog's age....
It is obvious to me that these ploys are an attempt to force a shallowpockets company to capitulate early, (can you say "out of court settlement" and "undeserved win") to increase their war chest, give a precident setting win and bulldoze a settlement (remember the 87 year old grandmother RIAA sued and got $17.000 because she she couldn't afford the attorney fees)
pray that the court system will see through the ploy and make them prove it before requiring injunction and/or a monitary layout by RedHat to continue operations
I should just take the rest of the day off I guess.
I don't want to infringe on any patents.
I should just take the rest of the day off I guess.
I don't want to infringe on any patents.
Apache contributors and their companies agree to indemnify Apache in the chance that their contributed code could launch a lawsuit.
Even if the code is proven to have been original and that the creators had no prior knowledge... the cost of defense can be expensive.
Also if the patent could be reasonably invalidated by a prior art example, then you may win, but you still have to pay for the legal costs for the defense.
So even if you win, you lose.
What the USPO needs to do is to hire a team to review key patents and determine and show that they are invalid. In addion, they should revoke any and all patents of "Business Processes" since it can be shown that they are invalid to start with.
Apache contributors and their companies agree to indemnify Apache in the chance that their contributed code could launch a lawsuit.
Even if the code is proven to have been original and that the creators had no prior knowledge... the cost of defense can be expensive.
Also if the patent could be reasonably invalidated by a prior art example, then you may win, but you still have to pay for the legal costs for the defense.
So even if you win, you lose.
What the USPO needs to do is to hire a team to review key patents and determine and show that they are invalid. In addion, they should revoke any and all patents of "Business Processes" since it can be shown that they are invalid to start with.
their "patent" or are they just using it to go after other
companies?
Charles R. Whealton
Chuck Whealton @ pleasedontspam.com
their "patent" or are they just using it to go after other
companies?
Charles R. Whealton
Chuck Whealton @ pleasedontspam.com
- by Spartanicus March 5, 2009 8:51 AM PST
- All I have to ask is what in the heck is wrong with East Texas?
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(17 Comments)Seems like many of these suits originate from there. Also - the vultures filing these suits should be shunned, mocked, and discredited. A campaign should be started aimed at the company's shareholders to hopefully show what a bunch of dinks they've been supporting. (Not that it would work. Shareholders care only about money.)
What really needs to happen is a serious overhaul of patent law in this country.